Same standard for Martha Coakley? ‘Honest mistakes’: Martha Coakley failed to disclose all assets "Attorney General Martha Coakley acknowledged yesterday she overlooked more than $200,000 in savings when she mistakenly claimed to have zero personal assets in a financial disclosure required of candidates for U.S. Senate.
Coakley’s filing with the Senate Committee on Ethics will be corrected to include overlooked accounts, including a savings account in her husband’s name with more than $200,000 and a personal IRA containing roughly $12,000, said campaign spokesman Corey Welford"
It's OVER!! Marcia Coakley concedes!! Woohoo!! $$ sent to Brown campaign was well-spent. [Yeah, yeah... I know her name is Martha but the Kennedy kid kept calling her Marcia on Monday. Don't want to dis-respect a Kennedy.. of course, they can do it themselves.]
And, since she conceded there's absolutely NO reason SENATOR Scott Brown shouldn't be seated ASAP.
Yeah, yeah. Massachusetts Democrat's picked a lousy candidate (unlike Pennsylvania (*cough* Casey) or Pittsburgh (*cough* Ravenstahl). But I still want to know why Republicans hate America, why they want to see people die (because they have no or inadequate health insurance) or go bankrupt (because they have no or inadequate health insurance) or both.
So, a popular Democrat AG who has been elected and re-elected in a deeeep blue State loses (big) to a virtual unknown and, now, she's a "bad candidate"?
CM, well, Coakley was elected *once* to statewide office, and at least a couple or more to a county position. I don't know much of anything about Coakley's positions, but I'll assume she as a typical Massachusetts Democrat, so I probably would have voted for her.
But over half the voters in Massachusetts are independents (not registered either Democrat or Republican). So Coakley would have had to do some persuading. I assume you saw the Jon Stewart piece from the next post. Apparently Coakley was an indifferent, if not actively hostile, campaigner, according to reports. Now, I think people should vote on the issues, and I am sure whenever a Republican wins you think the voters did vote on the issues. People certainly do tend to vote their party affiliation, but that still put half the potential vote up for grabs. By all indications, Brown won the "I'd rather have you sitting in my living room" contest. Voters aren't stupid, and if they don't have much money they aren't going to think the Republican is going to do anything for them. But voters are pissed off this year, and Coakley was running as the party in power candidate, while Brown was the outsider. Add in Coakley being obnoxious about campaigning while Brown was all slimy smiles, and voila, Coakley a bad candidate.
Rep. Alan Grayson and Dayvoe wants to send Angie Langley to prison for 5 years for making a mistake on her FEC paperwork.
ReplyDeleteSame standard for Martha Coakley?
‘Honest mistakes’: Martha Coakley failed to disclose all assets
"Attorney General Martha Coakley acknowledged yesterday she overlooked more than $200,000 in savings when she mistakenly claimed to have zero personal assets in a financial disclosure required of candidates for U.S. Senate.
Coakley’s filing with the Senate Committee on Ethics will be corrected to include overlooked accounts, including a savings account in her husband’s name with more than $200,000 and a personal IRA containing roughly $12,000, said campaign spokesman Corey Welford"
It's OVER!! Marcia Coakley concedes!! Woohoo!! $$ sent to Brown campaign was well-spent. [Yeah, yeah... I know her name is Martha but the Kennedy kid kept calling her Marcia on Monday. Don't want to dis-respect a Kennedy.. of course, they can do it themselves.]
ReplyDeleteAnd, since she conceded there's absolutely NO reason SENATOR Scott Brown shouldn't be seated ASAP.
Wooooohooooo!!!!!!!
Hellllloooooo!!!!!!!Aaaannnnnyyooone heeeeeerrrre???? /echo
ReplyDeleteDidn't think so.
This wasn't just a "shot across the bow". This was a howitzer direct hit into the side of the good ship Obamalot.
"I see Dead Democrat Senators and Representatives" [paraphrase of a movie line, you know the Bruce Willis movie]
Yeah, yeah. Massachusetts Democrat's picked a lousy candidate (unlike Pennsylvania (*cough* Casey) or Pittsburgh (*cough* Ravenstahl). But I still want to know why Republicans hate America, why they want to see people die (because they have no or inadequate health insurance) or go bankrupt (because they have no or inadequate health insurance) or both.
ReplyDeleteSo, a popular Democrat AG who has been elected and re-elected in a deeeep blue State loses (big) to a virtual unknown and, now, she's a "bad candidate"?
ReplyDeleteYou're really funny, don't you know?
CM, well, Coakley was elected *once* to statewide office, and at least a couple or more to a county position. I don't know much of anything about Coakley's positions, but I'll assume she as a typical Massachusetts Democrat, so I probably would have voted for her.
ReplyDeleteBut over half the voters in Massachusetts are independents (not registered either Democrat or Republican). So Coakley would have had to do some persuading. I assume you saw the Jon Stewart piece from the next post. Apparently Coakley was an indifferent, if not actively hostile, campaigner, according to reports. Now, I think people should vote on the issues, and I am sure whenever a Republican wins you think the voters did vote on the issues. People certainly do tend to vote their party affiliation, but that still put half the potential vote up for grabs. By all indications, Brown won the "I'd rather have you sitting in my living room" contest. Voters aren't stupid, and if they don't have much money they aren't going to think the Republican is going to do anything for them. But voters are pissed off this year, and Coakley was running as the party in power candidate, while Brown was the outsider. Add in Coakley being obnoxious about campaigning while Brown was all slimy smiles, and voila, Coakley a bad candidate.