THE WARD BOSS STORY GOT HI-JACKED BY A

              COMPUTER GOBLIN---SO RUNNING IT AGAIN

               January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

               One of our loyal readers and valuable commentators, Marilyn called to our attention that either a computer goblin captured the post, and ate the first letters of each line, or Jon had too much coffee this morning.  It took a lot of “doing” to fix it, and still don’t know what caused it.  We all thank Marilyn for calling the snafu to our attention.

                 I felt the post important enough to run another day.  Massachusetts voters served notice on all others yesterday that they had no intention of returning a Senator just because she was a democrat.  I doubt seriously that the election means that the number of republicans has increased even by 10 in the state.  But, it does mean that no democrat, or republican, better assume that because he/she is a member of the state’s pre-eminent party that re-election is a sure thing.

                 I believe that the Massachusetts voters turned out a democrat who thought that she was “entitled” to re-election.  They served notice that they no longer will tolerate the status quo.

                 The beneficiary of this attitude is a republican who took nothing for granted and who tied himself to the John Kennedy belief that jobs will come if the government helps businesses by giving tax relief, at least in the form of investment incentives.  Brown is not an elitist, he is not aloof, he does not think that he is above and better than the voters.  The message from Massachusetts, a long time democrat stronghold, is that candidates, republican or democrat, better listen to the people and hear them, and better not take incumbency for granted.

                 Brown’s unlikely win reminded me of a campaign by a young Paul Sarbanes who ran for Congress during my stay in Baltimore.  In 1970, he took on in the democrat primary an incumbent congressman, Edward Garmatz, who was serving his twelfth term.  Garmatz was of course a heavy favorite, he was the champion of the unions that staffed and worked the Baltimore docks and port.  He took his presence in Congress for granted and paid little attention to the voices of any voters outside the union bosses.

                 Sarbanes, a member of the State legislature, had no party organization and no party support.  He had little money, but he had perseverance.  He went door to door throughout the district; his wife went door to door campaigning for her husband.  I remember the evening, around 8pm, when Ms. Sarbanes knocked on our door in Baltimore City to announce “I’m Mrs. Paul Sarbanes and I am asking that you vote for my husband.  Would you mind if I came in and told you about him.”  By the time she left, she had two votes.  The low key, door to door campaign shocked the politicos of Maryland who assumed that Garmatz would back into another term by simply running a few half page ads in the newspapers.

                Sarbanes not only won the primary, and the general election, he went on to win a later Senate race and become the longest serving Senator in Maryland history.  Never, during his long career, did he presume victory.  He campaigned by listening and hearing, and representing the interests of Maryland citizens.

      

                Garmatz was as out of touch with voters and their interests and issues as was the incumbent democrat in Tuesday’s Massachusetts election.  Voters did not put up with being ignored any more in 1970 in Maryland than they did on Tuesday in Massachusetts.

                  THE WARD BOSS STORY GOT HI-JACKED BY A

              COMPUTER GOBLIN---SO RUNNING IT AGAIN

               January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

               One of our loyal readers and valuable commentators, Marilyn called to our attention that either a computer goblin captured the post, and ate the first letters of each line, or Jon had too much coffee this morning.  It took a lot of “doing” to fix it, and still don’t know what caused it.  We all thank Marilyn for calling the snafu to our attention.

                 I felt the post important enough to run another day.  Massachusetts voters served notice on all others yesterday that they had no intention of returning a Senator just because she was a democrat.  I doubt seriously that the election means that the number of republicans has increased even by 10 in the state.  But, it does mean that no democrat, or republican, better assume that because he/she is a member of the state’s pre-eminent party that re-election is a sure thing.

                 I believe that the Massachusetts voters turned out a democrat who thought that she was “entitled” to re-election.  They served notice that they no longer will tolerate the status quo.

                 The beneficiary of this attitude is a republican who took nothing for granted and who tied himself to the John Kennedy belief that jobs will come if the government helps businesses by giving tax relief, at least in the form of investment incentives.  Brown is not an elitist, he is not aloof, he does not think that he is above and better than the voters.  The message from Massachusetts, a long time democrat stronghold, is that candidates, republican or democrat, better listen to the people and hear them, and better not take incumbency for granted.

                 Brown’s unlikely win reminded me of a campaign by a young Paul Sarbanes who ran for Congress during my stay in Baltimore.  In 1970, he took on in the democrat primary an incumbent congressman, Edward Garmatz, who was serving his twelfth term.  Garmatz was of course a heavy favorite, he was the champion of the unions that staffed and worked the Baltimore docks and port.  He took his presence in Congress for granted and paid little attention to the voices of any voters outside the union bosses.

                 Sarbanes, a member of the State legislature, had no party organization and no party support.  He had little money, but he had perseverance.  He went door to door throughout the district; his wife went door to door campaigning for her husband.  I remember the evening, around 8pm, when Ms. Sarbanes knocked on our door in Baltimore City to announce “I’m Mrs. Paul Sarbanes and I am asking that you vote for my husband.  Would you mind if I came in and told you about him.”  By the time she left, she had two votes.  The low key, door to door campaign shocked the politicos of Maryland who assumed that Garmatz would back into another term by simply running a few half page ads in the newspapers.

                Sarbanes not only won the primary, and the general election, he went on to win a later Senate race and become the longest serving Senator in Maryland history.  Never, during his long career, did he presume victory.  He campaigned by listening and hearing, and representing the interests of Maryland citizens.

      

                Garmatz was as out of touch with voters and their interests and issues as was the incumbent democrat in Tuesday’s Massachusetts election.  Voters did not put up with being ignored any more in 1970 in Maryland than they did on Tuesday in Massachusetts.

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

        So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their civic American duty.

        They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy, urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

        Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

        They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

        Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home from work.

    She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that day.

   Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.  Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal work as long. 

     And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early, and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation for the next day.

 

    So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the Bushes.

   She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded, smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

  Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten 40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

   The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax credit for business.

   The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

    Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will come.

   A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do, stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD. AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

  As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.  After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

 

  One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference---but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

    

             

 

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

  NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

        So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their civic American duty.

        They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy, urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

        Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

        They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

        Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home from work.

    She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that day.

   Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.  Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal work as long. 

     And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early, and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation for the next day.

 

    So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the Bushes.

   She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded, smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

  Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten 40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

   The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax credit for business.

   The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

    Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will come.

   A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do, stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD. AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

  As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.  After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

 

  One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference---but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

    

             

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

  NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

        So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their civic American duty.

        They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy, urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

        Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

        They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

        Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home from work.

    She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that day.

   Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.  Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal work as long. 

     And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early, and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation for the next day.

 

    So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the Bushes.

   She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded, smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

  Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten 40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

   The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax credit for business.

   The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

    Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will come.

   A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do, stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD. AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

  As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.  After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

 

  One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference---but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

    

             

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

  NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

        So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their civic American duty.

        They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy, urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

        Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

        They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

        Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home from work.

    She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that day.

   Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.  Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal work as long. 

     And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early, and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation for the next day.

 

    So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the Bushes.

   She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded, smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

  Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten 40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

   The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax credit for business.

   The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

    Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will come.

   A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do, stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD. AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

  As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.  After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

 

  One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference---but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

    

             

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

                           January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

            I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

                           So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do                                       the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with                                        the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good                                       stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their                                              civic American duty.

                             They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east                                       bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy,                                                urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that                                       within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

                             Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the                                        candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking                                            hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the                               evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

                            They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in                                     Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a                                        crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not                                      have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the                                           bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all                                               would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been                                               urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

                            Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or                                        even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly                                      hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am                                              for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home                                                 from work.

                           She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour                               which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After                                        all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that                                               day.

                            Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying                                     moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the                                              democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They                                                would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason                                          for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the                                                         neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.                                        Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big                                    time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal                                 work as long. 

                           And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early,                                       and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The                                        later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and                                                Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation                                             for the next day.

                             So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left                           them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as                                       surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the                                      Bushes.

                            She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A                                  democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting                                          germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of                                           voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of                                       health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded,                                              smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who                                         felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the                                              exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

                           Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten                               40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the                                       difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

                           The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald                                 Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax                                           credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will                                                 replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and                                         permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a                                            republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax                                          credit for business.

                            The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that                                    speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a                                           new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and                                   other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

                             Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects                                     would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it                                       was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John                                                    Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business                                               sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get                                            credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will                                          come.

                           A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers                                       on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and                                      didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing                                       Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the                                         working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in                                              hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to                            meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

                           Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do,                             stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not                                        ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.                                  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her                                                the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE                                              COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO                                             THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD.                                      AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND                             WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

                           As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in                               doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.                                            After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they                                              standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the                                        candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their                                         candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

                           One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them”                                    just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and                                              needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping                                  jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them                                             AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts                                               ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good                                                thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a                                                 position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference--                                       -but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

 

 

 

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

                           January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

            I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

                           So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do                                       the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with                                        the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good                                       stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their                                              civic American duty.

                             They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east                                       bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy,                                                urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that                                       within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

                             Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the                                        candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking                                            hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the                               evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

                            They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in                                     Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a                                        crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not                                      have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the                                           bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all                                               would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been                                               urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

                            Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or                                        even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly                                      hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am                                              for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home                                                 from work.

                           She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour                               which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After                                        all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that                                               day.

                            Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying                                     moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the                                              democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They                                                would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason                                          for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the                                                         neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.                                        Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big                                    time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal                                 work as long. 

                           And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early,                                       and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The                                        later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and                                                Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation                                             for the next day.

                             So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left                           them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as                                       surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the                                      Bushes.

                            She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A                                  democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting                                          germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of                                           voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of                                       health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded,                                              smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who                                         felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the                                              exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

                           Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten                               40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the                                       difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

                           The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald                                 Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax                                           credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will                                                 replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and                                         permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a                                            republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax                                          credit for business.

                            The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that                                    speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a                                           new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and                                   other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

                             Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects                                     would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it                                       was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John                                                    Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business                                               sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get                                            credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will                                          come.

                           A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers                                       on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and                                      didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing                                       Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the                                         working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in                                              hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to                            meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

                           Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do,                             stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not                                        ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.                                  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her                                                the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE                                              COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO                                             THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD.                                      AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND                             WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

                           As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in                               doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.                                            After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they                                              standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the                                        candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their                                         candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

                           One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them”                                    just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and                                              needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping                                  jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them                                             AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts                                               ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good                                                thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a                                                 position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference--                                       -but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

 

 

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

                           January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

            I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

                           So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do   the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with    the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good        stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their               civic American duty.

                             They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east        bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy,           urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that                     within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

                             Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the                                        candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking                                            hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the                               evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

                            They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in                                     Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a                                        crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not                                      have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the                                           bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all                                               would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been                                               urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

                            Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or                                        even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly                                      hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am                                              for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home                                                 from work.

                           She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour                               which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After                                        all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that                                               day.

                            Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying                                     moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the                                              democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They                                                would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason                                          for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the                                                         neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.                                        Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big                                    time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal                                 work as long. 

                           And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early,                                       and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The                                        later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and                                                Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation                                             for the next day.

                             So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left                           them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as                                       surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the                                      Bushes.

                            She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A                                  democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting                                          germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of                                           voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of                                       health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded,                                              smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who                                         felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the                                              exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

                           Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten                               40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the                                       difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

                           The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald                                 Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax                                           credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will                                                 replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and                                         permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a                                            republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax                                          credit for business.

                            The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that                                    speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a                                           new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and                                   other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

                             Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects                                     would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it                                       was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John                                                    Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business                                               sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get                                            credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will                                          come.

                           A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers                                       on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and                                      didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing                                       Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the                                         working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in                                              hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to                            meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

                           Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do,                             stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not                                        ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.                                  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her                                                the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE                                              COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO                                             THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD.                                      AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND                             WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

                           As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in                               doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.                                            After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they                                              standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the                                        candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their                                         candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

 

                           One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them”                                    just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and                                              needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping                                  jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them                                             AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts                                               ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good                                                thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a                                                 position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference--                                       -but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

 

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

                           January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

            I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

                           So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do                                       the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with                                        the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good                                       stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their                                              civic American duty.

                             They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east                                       bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy,                                                urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that                                       within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

                             Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the                                        candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking                                            hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the                               evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

                            They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in                                     Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a                                        crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not                                      have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the                                           bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all                                               would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been                                               urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

                            Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or                                        even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly                                      hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am                                              for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home                                                 from work.

                           She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour                               which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After                                        all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that                                               day.

                            Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying                                     moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the                                              democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They                                                would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason                                          for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the                                                         neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.                                        Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big                                    time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal                                 work as long. 

                           And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early,                                       and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The                                        later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and                                                Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation                                             for the next day.

                             So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left                           them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as                                       surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the                                      Bushes.

                            She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A                                  democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting                                          germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of                                           voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of                                       health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded,                                              smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who                                         felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the                                              exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

                           Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten                               40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the                                       difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

                           The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald                                 Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax                                           credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will                                                 replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and                                         permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a                                            republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax                                          credit for business.

                            The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that                                    speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a                                           new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and                                   other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

                             Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects                                     would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it                                       was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John                                                    Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business                                               sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get                                            credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will                                          come.

                           A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers                                       on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and                                      didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing                                       Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the                                         working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in                                              hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to                            meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

                           Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do,                             stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not                                        ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.                                  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her                                                the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE                                              COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO                                             THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD.                                      AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND                             WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

                           As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in                               doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.                                            After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they                                              standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the                                        candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their                                         candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

 

                           One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them”                                    just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and                                              needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping                                  jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them                                             AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts                                               ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good                                                thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a                                                 position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference--                                       -but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

 

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

  NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

        So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their civic American duty.

        They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy, urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

        Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

        They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

        Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home from work.

    She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that day.

   Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.  Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal work as long. 

     And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early, and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation for the next day.

    So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the Bushes.

   She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded, smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

  Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten 40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

   The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax credit for business.

   The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

    Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will come.

   A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do, stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD. AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

  As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.  After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

 

  One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference---but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.

 

 

THE WARD BOSSES OF BOSTON WERE QUIET---

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES THEY DID

  NOT HAVE A FIGHTER TO SUPPORT

January 20, 2010---by Fred Kelly Grant

I don’t mean that the democrat bosses were quiet AFTER Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts yesterday.  I mean they were quiet before the election.  They knew they had a loser; they knew they had on their hands that rare beast, a democrat who does not how to fight, a democrat who doe not care about the people, a democrat who does not WANT TO FIGHT, CRAVE TO FIGHT, LOVE THE FIGHT.  They knew that they had the normal type of republican candidate for Massachusetts, but she was dressed as a democrat in their camp.

        So what happened?  Well, for one the bosses did not “get out the vote”.   They did not do the things that democrat bosses always do---give rides to the polls, give breakfasts with the candidate present, right up to election day shaking every hand, sharing a cup of good stiff Massachusetts coffee and urging everyone there to go vote for a democrat as their civic American duty.

        They did not give lunches where the candidate went from one to the other sharing east bay chowder with the voters, urging them each to go vote for the spirit of Ted Kennedy, urging them she was the epitome of the Kennedy spirit, the Kennedy fight, and that within that aura she would represent them as the Kennedy’s had.

        Their after work hours cocktail parties were sparse.  These are the ones where the candidate would have shared a beer, or club soda while the voter drank beer, shaking hands and urging their vote to keep the Kennedy fight going.  Those would have been the evening meetings for the blue collar workers.

        They would have scheduled cocktail parties just a bit later for the office workers in Boston.  Voters would have been offered cocktails and nice cheese and crackers, with a crab or lobster dip.  The candidate would have shared a cocktail, or soda that would not have bothered anyone.  This time she would have stayed seated near the spread and the bosses would have brought the voters to her.  But all hands would have been held, all would have been called by their first name once in the process.  All would have been urged to vote for her, not just to vote.

        Why didn’t they do this?  Because they did not have a candidate who had the will to, or even wanted to go shake all those hands, share vittles with all those folks at all un-Godly hours of the day and night.  After all some of those breakfasts would have been at 5am for shift workers going to work, and then again at 7am for shift workers coming home from work.

    She saw no reason to interrupt her day’s work schedule to start at such outrageous hour which would have thrown off her equilibrium of schedule for the rest of the day.  After all she was going to give a speech to a commercial bank club prayer breakfast at 10 that day.

   Some of those lunches would have been attended by disruptive kids accompanying moms who can’t afford baby sitters while they meet a politician.  Always before the democrat candidate had welcomed the kids and wooed the mothers in doing so.  They would have interfered with preparation of a legal brief that was due.  She saw no reason for these lunches because they cut into her work day, they had to be given in the neighborhoods to be effective and that took her at least an hour in round trip driving.  Besides she was giving her time up for a commercial investment house’s luncheon for big time supporters---it was close to her office and would not take her away from her legal work as long. 

     And some of the getting off work shifts  would cause her to end her legal day too early, and would last so long that she might have to miss Law and Order for that night.  The later cocktail getting off work sessions definitely would have interfered with Law and Order, and would have run so late into the evening that it would disrupt her preparation for the next day.

    So, thousands upon thousands of the faithful were left behind.  This Martha Coakley left them behind with her prosecutor’s aloofness and cold stare and weak hand shake just as surely as kids are still being left behind in the “No Child Left Behind” program of the Bushes.

   She never felt like, looked like, or acted like a Massachusetts democrat candidate.  A democrat in Boston does not shake hands weakly, as though he/she is afraid of getting germs from the voter.  A democrat in Boston does not just stand and stare as a group of voters tell her what they want to see in DC, the changes they want to see, the kind of health care they want.  This candidate did.  She stood and stared and then just nodded, smiled wanly and walked on to the next group, leaving behind her a group of people who felt as unheard and unlistened to as they are in DC.  This presiding Senator portrayed the exact things that the voters know are wrong in DC.

  Scott Brown, the attacker who under normal democrat tactics never should have gotten 40% of the vote, fought for every vote.  There is an advertisement that demonstrates the difference between the fighting republican and the laying back democrat.

 

   The advertisement started with a black and white footage of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (remember, this is Massachusetts) asking Congress to pass an investment tax credit to stimulate the economy.  Said the President “The billions of dollars this bill will replace in the hands of consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits for our economy.”   As usual, it was President Kennedy using a republican oriented business proposal to stimulate the economy through an increased tax credit for business.

   The 1962 speech of Kennedy then merged into Brown continuing the words of that speech “Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary.  And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

    Martha Coakley laughed it off.  She said that her neighborhood consensus projects would more than offset this “cute” use of John Kennedy’s words.  She never saw that it was not just a “cute” use of JFK’s words.  It was a demonstration that what John Kennedy won Massachusetts with half a century ago was the same kind of good business sense that Scott Brown as a republican was promoting.  If you allow a business to get credit for investment and business building, jobs will come.  If you give it, they will come.

   A barrage of Brown’s ads came forth---some showing him shaking the hands of workers on the job, getting off the job, standing in the cold talking to workers who stayed and didn’t rush off because a candidate for the Senate was talking to them.  Ads showing Kennedys doing just that, and more ads showing Brown “pressing the flesh” with the working people, at senior lunches, outside schools where parents picked up kids, in hospitals, at high style parties at night and back at the job site in the early morning cold to meet and greet every line worker showing up for work.

Oakley incredibly asked her staff, and even a news reporter, “what am I supposed to do, stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for votes?”  Oh Lord no, you should not ever even think of doing what a legion of democrat winners have done in Massachusetts.  Too bad for the democrats that Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy had not been there to tell her the answer:  “HELL YES, AND DO IT AGAIN WHEN THE SHIFT CHANGES.  THE COLDER OUTSIDE THE BETTER. THE LONGER YOU TALK AND LISTEN TO THEM IN THE COLD THE BETTER. THEY LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COLD. AND IN MASSACHUSETTS THEY EXPECT THEIR SENATOR TO WITHSTAND WHAT THEY WITHSTAND.”

  As it is, she had to admit last night that she had not done everything correctly.  Even in doing so, one could read that she didn’t really understand what she had done wrong.  After all aren’t Bostonians and other democrats in the state aloof people?  Aren’t they standoffish?  Maybe to strangers and even their neighbors Ms. Oakley, but not to the candidates seeking their vote.  They are neither standoffish nor do they expect their candidate to be standoffish and worried about missing Law and Order on television.

 

  One good thing for the voters of Massachusetts, they will have a senator who “gets them” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who “wants to understand them and their desires and needs” just as their beloved Kennedys did, who speaks good sense about business helping jobs if business is helped just as  their beloved Kennedys did,  who will “listen to them AND HEAR THEM, just as their beloved Kennedys did, who will put Massachusetts ahead of all other interests just as their beloved Kennedys did.  And, the second good thing is that they sent back to the United States Senate once again a Senator who is in a position to make a difference, and who apparently has the desire to make that difference---but always for the benefit of Massachusetts citizens first, the people who elected him.

   They rejected an incumbent who was seen as a disinterested candidate, counting on democrats simply going out in mass to re-elect her to do the will of the democrat party in the Senate as set by Harry Reid.  That’s not the Massachusetts way.  They expect their Senators to set the tone in the Senate, not just play the game of follow the leader.  They have learned from the Kennedys that their senators can be good Americans, support America’s goals, but still and foremost care for the needs of Massachusetts.  And that’s the job of a good Massachusetts Senator, and Oakley did not do the job well.  The voters believe that Scott Brown will.  If he does, he will have a long reign.  If he doesn’t, you can believe that the next time around the bosses will pick a democrat who will have the old fire and drive---a Massachusetts democrat.