Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Martha Coakley -- Not the brightest bulb in the box

That might seem a tad harsh to some, but hear me out. Last night the Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat heated up last night. Scott Brown and Martha Coakley squared off in a debate where Ms. Coakley showed her true idiocy. Not only did the moderator contend the seat was the "Kennedy seat," which forced Mr. Brown to respond that the seat wasn't his seat. It wasn't Kennedy's, it wasn't the Democrat's seat. It was the people's seat, period. So chalk one up for Mr. Brown nailing the moderator's biased butt to the wall, but in the end it was Ms. Coakley who really stepped in it. Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit picked up on this obtuse answer from Ms. Coakley which should be the nail in her political coffin. In response to a question about Afghanistan, and whether we should have an exit strategy, Ms. Coakley answered, and showed her lack of intelligence: (HT to Captain Ed; full transcript courtesy of John McCormack of the Weekly Standard blog.)

MODERATOR [David Gergen]: “Do you think we should withdraw? [from Afghanistan]”

COAKLEY: “I think we should plan an exit strategy, yes.”

MODERATOR: “And how would we succeed?”

COAKLEY: “I am not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the vision in Afghanistan was to go in because we believe the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that goal. They are gone, they are not there anymore, they are in apparently Yemen and Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is.”

Oh? They're not in Afghanistan? Really? Is she sure about that because ten days ago there was a terrorist attack in Afghanistan that killed eight CIA officers. And there's a record of continued attacks in Afghanistan. Since the Iraq Surge's success, and focus has now been turned to Afghanistan, the attacks in Afghanistan have escalated. US combat deaths in Afghanistan more than doubled from 2008 to 2009 going from 155 to 317.

We have Taliban/AQ terrorists that do operate in Afghanistan. They jump across the border from Pakistan to engage coalition forces, then go back to Pakistan for relative protection. We can't just march into Pakistan and take them out, which is why we use Predator drones to do that dirty work, but for Ms. Coakley to claim there aren't any terrorists in Afghanistan is beyond obtuse; it's just plain stupid, and dangerous. There are terrorists in Afghanistan, both foreign and domestic, and they are clearly taking the fight to our soldiers. We don't need an exit strategy. We need a plan for success. We can hope the 30,000+ soldiers that Barry sent to Afghanistan will help, but we know that the numbers aren't nearly enough to make a significant difference. (They'll help, folks, but not in the way the Surge brigades in Iraq did.)

This should be the end of her national political career. No one this foolish should be sitting in the US Senate. Hopefully the voters in Massachusetts realize just how dangerous this sort of thinking is. Remember, the Senate -- the Congress -- doesn't just deal with domestic issues like health care reform, immigration reform, and taxation. They do have a role, albeit limited, in foreign affairs, especially with regard to our foreign engagements. The last thing we need is a clueless senator who believes that we face no serious enemy in Afghanistan. Our enemies are spread throughout the globe, and sticking one's head in the sand and pretending the enemy doesn't exist is beyond foolish. It's reckless.

Publius II


Blogger Ed Rasimus said...

"No one this foolish should be sitting in the US Senate."

That is the most egregious example of understatement I've ever seen! And, you followed it with a suggestion that the people of MA should be aware of a requirement for intelligence in their representation. That is soooo 19th Century.

January 13, 2010 at 9:08 AM  
Blogger Syd And Vaughn said...


I'm so sorry that you think that my thinking is 19th Century. I feel it's about bloody time the people in this country, who do vote, do the research for these candidates before blindly voting for someone.

We seem to have around 500 people sitting in congress that no longer care about their constituents, no longer listen to them, and no longer pay attention to the issues confronting the average America.

My simple point is that the voters in Massachusetts are about to make a choice between a guy who seems to be a pretty good choice for them, and a partisan hack that doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. Issues confronting this nation right now, especially national security, shouldn't be taken for granted, or treated with the aloofness Ms. Coakley is displaying.

Publius II

January 13, 2010 at 2:12 PM  
Blogger Ed Rasimus said...

You misread my comment. My point was that the concept of enlightened representation, responsive to the electorate yet experienced and dedicated to making informed choices to serve the long term greater good of the nation was exactly what the founders envisioned.

Unfortunately the dumbing down of the electorate has resulted in hordes of lemmings which are taken in by sound-bite rhetoric and meaningless "hope and change" slogans.

Your wish that the electorate would do the research and vote intelligently is mine as well. Unfortunately it isn't likely in my remaining lifetime.

A state which has regularly and consistently placed folks like Kennedy, Kerry, Franks, et. al. into Congress is not likely to see the light next week.

January 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM  
Blogger Syd And Vaughn said...


I completely understand your point. That said, I can only hope -- we can only hope -- that this year the electorate is "awake." If we are to put any sort of stop on this, this is the year to do it.

Two questions remain: Has the GOP learned the lesson it was taught in 2006 and 2008? That remains to be seen. We know by the grass roots movement that the people are ticked. The question for the GOP is have they gotten the message, or are they paying lip service to the base they absolutely depend on? Again, that remains to be seen.

As things stand right now, things don't look good for Coakley. And anyone who claims this isn't a significant moment in American electoral politics is a fool. At the very least, losing Kennedy's Senate seat isn't something to be taken lightly in an off-year election; most especially when the seat isn't up again until 2012, I believe.

The other question -- Has the party in majority heard the outrage? -- is another to be determined. Some say they're worried, and others say there is no worry. Much of what we see is what I saw in '94. People are ticked.

The worst case scenario is people are so fed up they just don't vote. Best case? The Dems lose their overwhelming majorities in Congress, and that is what we see. We don't see the loss of either House, unless we're missing something, but we do see distinct gains made in both Houses. That much, alone, should send chills up a congressional Democrat's spine.

Publius II

PS: Pardon any typos at this hour, please.

January 17, 2010 at 11:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home