“My advice to the President is, with a great deal of respect, take New York off your radar screen,” the state’s senior senator told reporters. “Find another location.”

The most logical place,” added Schumer, “is in some isolated military base that is completely far away from population centers and is self-contained.”

Schumer’s middle-of-nowhere, military-base criteria came a day after President Obama said he has “not ruled out” bringing the trial to Manhattan Federal Court – despite a taxpayer tab estimated at $1 billion over five years.

We had thought after the shocking election of Scott Brown to Teddy Kennedy’s old senate seat, the message would have been clear. For a strong Obama ally like Schumer to come out publically and say ‘do not have the trials here’ – since the President seems to be hemming and hawing on this – it is a pretty good sign that Schumer is feeling the heat in his own state.

Part of the backlash that swept Scott Brown into office involved his campaigning on stopping the terror trials from being held in NY. The exhorbitant costs and added security the trials would involve, and who would pick up the tab, were issues upsetting to many. Politico is reporting that other Democrats in Congress likewise are running away from civilian terror trials, which are polling as very unpopular with the American people.

I advocated for Martha Coakley in the MA election and believe she was irrevocably hurt by saying these trials should be held in New York, and by allying herself with the Obama Administration, allowing him to campaign for her. This seemed to indicate she would be the crucial 60th vote on Mr. Obama’s unfortunate health care bill, however reluctantly. This sealed her fate. But as we have seen, the herd mentality in both parties makes it near impossible to stand alone. Trapped between being ostracized by her own party or going along to get along, she became the casualty, and scapegoat, of the message voters wanted to send the President and Congress. Once again, a qualified woman was cast aside.

Sen. Schumer is reading the tea leaves, both from MA’s special election and his own poll numbers, which are on the decline. Understandably, he is looking to protect his own behind with voters. This is yet another situation where President Obama’s policies are becoming toxic to his fellow Democrats.

Insiders said Monday that while the White House has all but taken the city off the table, it doesn’t want to make it official until a new site is lined up. The search is believed to extend well into the hinterlands, such as Colorado and Kansas.

AG Holder proposed 4 different location in upstate NY to Schumer, all of which he nixed.

“I told him that I was familiar with all four and none of them would work,” Schumer told the Daily News.

Further,

Some believe the whole debate may be moot, given GOP legislation that would block the feds from spending any money to try Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts. It is picking up support from Democrats too, such as Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.

“The political landscape has changed dramatically on this,” said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.).

Mayor Bloomberg tried to stay out of the fray yesterday but reiterated that if the trial comes to New York, “We expect the federal government to pay for it.”

It appeared the Administration was going to backtrack on the NY trial location, yet by Senator Schumer choosing to draw a line in the sand publically, he indicates the American people’s voices are being heard. It will be curious to see who else is listening and what, if any, effect this will have on future policy.

What say you?

The other night, Stewart went after Olbermann for his baseless attacks on Scott Brown, the new US Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (see, I know how to spell it, even without spell-check! Ahem.). It was absolutely priceless, and is continued within Olbermann’s response to Stewart below:

Yeah, I think there is one person who was funny in that clip, and it sure wasn’t Olbermann.

Stewart gave Olbermann a couple of points, but when someone uses as a reference a video clip (a Brown rally) that has been discredited, yet still insists on making the point with no context (that what was shouted off camera related to a case on which Coakley worked), it is demonstrative of some of the hoops Olbermann will jump through to attack someone. It is disingenuous at best, but that is what we have come to expect from Olbermann. Bluster, innuendo, and attacks based on the thinnest of inferences. I mean, really, for Olbermann, of all people, to attack ANYONE else for being sexist, is just, well, laughable. Go back to the 2008 Primary campaign on just about any night, but this one in particular is pretty indicative:

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek’s Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take “some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this.”

Said Olbermann: “Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”

Now, WHO’S sexist, exactly, Keith? Yeah, uh huh – I’ll give you a hint. It ain’t Scott Brown.

And since Jon Stewart mentioned John Edwards, I just had to see what he said about him. Here it is – a newsflash for “idiots”:

Well, I certainly cannot disagree with Stewart’s assessment of those who did NOT know this child really was Edwards, all protests aside.

Yep, I may just have to start watching The Daily Show again if he keeps going this way. I guess people really ARE starting to wake up! And about damn time, too…

Fast forward to the end of year one of President Obama’s rule. He outsourced control to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Franks, et al – the worst of what the current Democratic Party has to offer. Just like the Bush Administration before them, they co-opted the “never let a crisis go to waste” mantra, using the fears of the American people to ram through an unsuccessful pork-laden stimulus package and an incomprehensible health care giveaway to insurance and big phrma. But no jobs. Where are the jobs? Tone deaf. Arrogant. 2008 all over again. We are still being told we don’t matter. But this time, it is not just Hillary supporters – it is all of the American people. I live in a liberal area and I am seeing the anger growing even here.

Citizens at both ends of the spectrum are steaming and do not appreciate having their good will and trust abused. This was made clear in the past two Governor’s races. The special MA Senate race, where it looks as though Scott Brown may actually pull out a win in true blue Massachusetts, is sending shock waves in political circles throughout the country. As it should. That is the price you pay for treating the American people like we are a bunch of idiots. Congress, living in its rarified air, has the audacity to think they know what is best for us when they do not share our struggles.

But how can we blame Obama and Congress for thinking the American people can be led around like sheep when that is exactly what happened last year. The majority of voters bought into a commercial brand, without any evidence that the product could deliver as advertised.

How many of us have been calling our representatives complaining of reckless spending? My Congressman’s assistant had the facts wrong on the health care bill even as she bragged to me about its merits. My Senators’ staffers are arrogant and impatient when I call. And they are elitist as well. I have done my homework. I am their constituent and voicing my righteous concerns. And I am still being told to sit down and shut up.

The Democrats are as drunk with power as the Republicans were when they had a huge majority in 2002. The neo-cons predicted a supermajority for 20 years. They got their comeuppance. The same is coming for Democrats. I am heartbroken after biting my lip for eight years with the rule of the neo-cons that this is the “change” we are stuck with. Bailing out Wall Street and not Main street, back door deals and no transparency. Continuation of the policies of the previous administration.

I, too, was for Martha Coakley and wrote on her behalf when she was contesting the primary. I still believe she was the best of the Dem. primary contestants (particularly since she was running against a Pelosi pick) but I am disturbed by what I have learned and seen unfold this last week. Considering Coakley fought back the Stupak amendment, supports Gay rights and supported Hillary to the end, I am miserable to see her stand in lock step now with Obamacare and some of her other statements and actions this week have knocked me for a loop.

For her to fall into Party groupthink behavior is not what we need in the Senate. We have far too much of that already. Coakley having a fundraiser thrown by Big Insurance/Big Phrma was not the message the Coakley campaign wanted to send. Part of the reason I liked Coakley was that she did not stand with Obamacare. She has folded. In so doing, she has likewise turned a deaf ear to the mood of the country and to her own principles. That action has also tied her to Obama, scapegoating her for the actions of this reckless Administration.

The herd mentality is common to both parties and is killing us all. We need independent thinkers regardless of party. In our current system where there is no limit on campaign spending or fundraising, how is it possible for our public servants not to be slaves of the almighty dollar. When they are threatened with primary challenges if they do not kiss the feet of their respective party’s establishment and follow their orders, how can they vote their consciences? Clearly, public service of this kind is not meant to be a lifetime career. A little less focus on self-aggrandizement or re-election and more focus on doing the people’s business is in order.

Scott Brown may have skeletons in the closet of his record as well. Coakley might be the sacrificial lamb here since the Pelosi wing clearly has no use for her. But the fact is, what we have of late discovered about some of Coakley’s record does not look good. As much as I would like to trumpet a qualified woman for this office, I have seen that my wish to break the boys club and reward someone with the guts to stick with Hillary to the end allowed me to trust what I saw on the surface without digging in deeply for myself. Yet I am not assuming that Scott Brown by himself will be able to stop Obamacare as it currently stands. Like the Bush Administration before them, this bunch will push through whatever they see fit.

Such arrogance brings into sharp focus another mistake of the Coakley campaign post-primary. She, like many of us, assumed that in blue Massachusetts, winning the primary was as good as winning the general — what Republican would gain a foothold here? What Republican indeed. Nothing can or should be be taken for granted. Media boobs like MSNBC’s David Shuster wondering whether the people of Massachusetts “have lost their minds” and the likes of Shuster, Anderson Cooper and even Senator Schumer referring to the opposition as “teabaggers” does nothing to help Coakley’s cause.

Scott Brown is offering a populist message and in his Sunday campaign rally skillfully used Obama’s 2008 rhetoric against him. Truly I have no idea what he’s going to do if he gets into office. He could likewise be capitalizing on the mood of the country and trumpeting a populist message he has no intention of enforcing. I have seen far too much kabuki theatre from both sides to be trusting again. I can only hope that he is sincere. Nonetheless, the bigger picture has become breaking the supermajority. And sending a message to the arrogant few who are telling the many that we don’t matter.

…Attorney General Martha Coakley best exemplifies the qualities that make an effective U.S. senator.

A senator must be tough yet polished, a shrewd negotiator who is willing to compromise. Coakley strikes that balance, giving her the edge in a race against opponents who hold similar political views.

As attorney general, Martha Coakley sought to protect homeowners from abusive lending practices long before anyone coined the term “Great Recession.”

In June 2007, she announced an emergency 90-day regulation banning sham rescue schemes that took advantage of homeowners facing foreclosure. Judging the problem too dire to wait for the standard regulatory process, she boldly pressed forward to defend faltering homeowners.

Two months later, she proposed a series of new rules to fight predatory lending.

In 2008, Coakley responded to skyrocketing coastal homeowner’s insurance rates by calling on the state to fund public storm models crafted by academic scientists. SouthCoast homeowners — even those without so much as a water view — say their rates have doubled or tripled in the last few years.

This summer, Coakley filed suit against the federal government for equal marriage benefits, such as Social Security and income tax credits, for same-sex couples.

And in August, responding to growing political support for casinos, Coakley took forward-looking steps to update Massachusetts law with regard to money laundering and other crimes associated with gambling.

Coakley is a leader. She knows the law and is willing to take risks to do the right thing.
…Coakley was the first among the candidates to point out that the abortion amendment in the House health-care reform bill could actually roll back women’s access to abortion.

It does not merely block federal Medicaid funding for abortion for poor women — already the law — but in most cases prevents any government-run health plan or subsidized private insurance from covering abortion, regardless of whose money actually pays for the procedure. States could not use their own matching funds as some do now.
The result would be second-class treatment of poor women.

[snip]

Though gender should not propel an unworthy candidate forward, the gender issue matters. In all of Massachusetts’ long history, it has never sent a woman to the Senate.
It’s time to change that, but not with just anyone. The candidate must be worthy of the Senate, and Coakley is.

She is sharp and at the top of her game, ready to grow into the kind of senator Massachusetts deserves.

Her chief opponent, Rep. Capuano, was recently endorsed by Speaker Pelosi. That in itself is enough to disqualify him in my view. Not to mention his voting for the disastrous Stupak amendment in the House health care bill.

Coakley has also been endorsed by these publications:

Berkshire Eagle, MetroWest Daily News, Waltham Daily News Tribune, Milford Daily News and Dedham Transcript, Patriot Ledger (Quincy), Brockton Enterprise, Providence Journal and Springfield Republican.

Here is a link to a complete list of her endorsements by organizations, elected officials, and business and community leaders follows:

Those wishing to assist in their GOTV effort can e-mail elise@votecoakley.com for an ID to make calls at your leisure.

Coakley has shown courage and knows how to step up to the plate. Here’s hoping the voters agree and step up to the plate for her on Tuesday.

Once again, we have a woman vs. the old boys club in the run for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. So let me share a spot of good news with all of you. According to the Boston Globe:

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has a higher favorability rating than any other candidate in the rapidly-coalescing field for the US Senate seat left vacant by the death of the late Edward M. Kennedy, a new poll released tonight shows.

Attorney General Coakley’s credentials are impeccable. Moreover, she had the good sense to be a fierce Hillary supporter last year, refusing to give up her vote at the Convention even after Hillary released her delegates. Ms. Coakley still voted for the stronger candidate.

Martha Coakley has sued for equal marriage rights, filing a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, protesting the fact that 16,000 married same-sex couples are being unfairly denied benefits. [Although the Obama Administration Asked Court To Dismiss Another Challenge To Anti-Gay Marriage Law ]. She defended children against clergy sexual abuse, has won settlements that protect consumers and fought those who are unfair to workers, indicting contractors in connection with prevailing wage law violations. Sounds like just the kind of voice we need in the Senate right now.

Given Massachusetts progressive bent, it is surprising how difficult it is for qualified women to rise to positions of power in that state. The Hill’s article, Coakley’s Tough Battle in Massachusetts Special Election, states

Martha Coakley has the statewide profile, the political know-how, and the early edge needed to win a special election for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. But is she the right gender?

By most accounts, the Massachusetts attorney general should be and is the frontrunner in the special election, at least for now, and as the lone female candidate in a field of male congressmen, she should have a built-in advantage with half the electorate.

But this is Massachusetts, and the bluest state in the union has a not-so-Democratic reputation for turning away female candidates.

Women have been elected to just four statewide offices, none of which have been governor or Senate. Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) in 2007 became just the fourth woman elected to Congress in state history, and the first in a quarter-century.

It’s time to break that trend. January’s upcoming special election would be a good place to start.

Of note, Politico’s recent article Women Lawmakers Outperform Men:

Are women more effective lawmakers than men?

That’s the preliminary conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, who say that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.

Could that be because we are better at multitasking and are smarter shoppers? Hee hee. And the following information is just shocking – not:

The researchers also found that women introduced more legislation than men who served in their same districts, often hitting the ground running in their first terms.

“We find that, on average, women sponsor about three bills more per Congress per term than their male counterparts,” said Anzia. “They co-sponsor more bills than other members, and they also obtain more co-sponsors for their own bills.”

Since 1789, women have constituted just 2 percent of the total congressional population. The ratio of female to male representatives has increased in recent years, but the pace is still fairly glacial: Nearly 17 percent of House members are women today, compared with about 3 percent in 1979.

…Women who run and win are likely the most politically ambitious and talented of their pool, having potentially overcome hurdles including voter bias and self-doubt about their ability to win. … Large majorities of both men and women in candidate feeder pools, such as law offices and political organizations, believe there is a bias against women in elections, according to Lawless and Fox studies in 2005 and 2004.

Once women get to Capitol Hill, those hurdles may drive them to perform better, on average, than male counterparts who have faced a less contentious road.

We know something about that, don’t we?

While I was encouraged by the polling data in the Boston Globe, it is clear Ms. Coakley faces a tough battle and needs funding and boots on the ground to turn out the vote. As The Hill noted:

One Democratic consultant not aligned with any of the special election candidates said the glass ceiling is even tougher now because of the nature of low-turnout special elections and the timing of it, with a cold December primary and a colder January general election.

“She has to figure out not just how to get women votes but how to get senior women to vote for her and break a pattern where older women in Massachusetts don’t like women candidates,” the consultant said.

Coakley, who in 2006 was elected the state’s first female attorney general, is proudly running with the women’s mantle and has garnered the support of EMILY’s List and other women’s groups.

Emily’s List noted in an email the other day:

“In the 24 years since we founded EMILY’s List, I can’t think of a single race where the need was so urgent and the opportunity so great. We have a chance to make history once more, but we can’t afford to wait.”

Martha has everything going for her-intelligence, experience, competence and compassion-except the money- Shame of having a local campaign chest that can’t be used for a national position unlike the other candidates who are starting with well over 1 million dollars each.

Please do anything you can to help- $25-$4,800 ($2,400 for primary; $2,400 for general) Your money-no matter how small will matter-let’s level the playing!

http://www.actblue.com/page/mc2010

Check made out to Martha Coakley for Senate Committee:

Martha Coakley Committee
Box 220
State House Station
Boston MA 02133

For articles, updates on the campaign and information on all things Martha, please visit: Women for Coakley

I am proud to support Martha Coakley and hope that, once again, Massachusetts voters can look at the field and choose the best candidate.