Seven Reasons Progressives Should NOT vote for Martha Coakley

Liberal Democrats can't be blamed for their lack of enthusiasm for Martha Coakley. Some very distinguished individuals have held Ted Kennedy's old seat (e.g. John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, JFK), and now Massachusetts progressives are being asked replace "Lion of the Senate" with "a barn cat whose actions are based on primitive instinctual forces of political survival and savagery."

...Or to borrow words from the relentlessly progressive kids at Daily Kos, "be very afraid of wasting a senate seat, a safe Democratic senate seat from Massachusetts, on Martha Coakley."

What do liberals have against Martha Coakley? Glad you asked. Here are seven:

• The scandalous Fells Acres day care case (Coakley successfully fought to keep an innocent man in jail.)
• Martha's shocking indifference toward sadistic rape (the Keith Winfield curling iron case)
• The Big Dig tunnel collapse (shameless corruption and cronyism of the very worst kind)
• Coakley's shady deal with a notorious pedophile (John Geoghan)
• The financial disclosure "mistake" in which Martha Coakley failed to list $200,000 to $250,000 in assets on her financial disclosure forms for the Senate race.
• Her failure in the Henry Louis Gates arrest in Cambridge last July
• The Menino “emailgate” affair

(h/t, Left Bank of the Charles)

Progressives have very good reasons to oppose Martha Coakley, and I agree with those who say that "it would actually be tragic to see her in the senate."

Update: 22% of Massachusetts voters gave Martha Coakley very unfavorable ratings (vs. 5% very unfavorable for Scott Brown) in last night's Rasmussen poll.

Update II: Among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley (Well within the margin of error, 4.5%).

Update III: Marsha's running for AG now (re-election).

More

Rasmussen: Brown and Coakley separated by single digits.

Shameless corruption and cronyism of the worst kind, brought to you by Martha Coakley.

Massachusetts taxpayers pay $135,179/year for their corrupt AG, Martha Coakley

Martha Coakley improperly spent state campaign funds to ramp up her Senate bid before Ted Kennedy died?

Waterloo in 2010

Even die-hard liberals now admit that the elections of 2010 are likely to decimate the Democrats. The results of a new question added to the DK tracking poll portends doom:

QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?

Voter Intensity: Voting/NOT Voting

Republican Voters: 81/14

Independent Voters: 65/23

Democratic Voters: 56/40

Delving a little deeper into the numbers, 15% of Democrats say they're definitely not voting, compared to only 5% of Republicans who say the same.

Another thing to keep in mind while looking at these numbers: Lately, as a group, Independents have been drifting further to the right. If these numbers hold up, Democrats will be crushed in 2010.

If the Democrats seem suicidal in their quest to upend the health care system, it's because they are expecting massive losses in 2010 no matter what they do in the interim. They are on a kamikaze mission. Don't expect the Dems to be swayed by concerns about self-preservation.

Via Memeorandum

More

Poll Paints Ugly 2010 Picture for Democrats

Apples & Oranges: Don't let the pundits mislead you on ObamaCare polling

Dems' kamikaze mission: Health care by New Year's

Krauthammer: Kill the Bills. Do Health Reform Right

Transcript: Obama's West Point Afghanistan Speech

R. S. McCain: Is Kathleen Parker's Evil Underrated?