Skip to comments.Globe endorsement: Martha Coakley for Senate (SHOCKER!!!)
Posted on 01/13/2010 3:07:47 PM PST by maggief
People in Massachusetts are understandably frustrated. Next week's special election comes in the midst of a too-long Senate debate on health care, showcasing much of what is offensive about the rules of the Senate. The fact that a final bill hasn't even emerged has left many people ready to toss away the whole thing. Stir in the anxiety that comes with a still-faltering economy, and voters are angry.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
This endorsement will be a great help to Brown. I think it’s hilarious these papers still think anyone gives a rip who they endorse or that anyone votes according to what they say.
Lol! Let us hope they get to eat it! It would be a huge indication of dissatisfaction if Brown wins. The Democrats in Massachusetts are so arrogant they are overdue for a loss.
This endorsement was completely unexpected. I am wholly shocked at this.
The Globe isn’t supporting “Change”? Oh, that was so 2008.
Thanks to FReeper WaterBoard for this version.
Did you hear her say if she is not elected; democrats will have to run in competative races?
What’s wrong with that?
Just what we need...another freakin lawyer in washington. /mega sarc
I bet they are smoking the same stuff they did, when they came up with their ridiculous âCoakley is ahead by 15%â poll.
The editorial is the usual tripe, but it’s worth reading the reader comments. Joe Average is *not* happy with the Globe.
Fortunately, the Globe has its own peanut gallery. Some samples:
1. Great decision, Globe.
She knows nothing about foreign affairs (she thinks the Taliban is out of Afghanistan), health care (she thinks the health care bill offers cost savings), or any of the other big challenges facing our nation today.
Maybe you guys should report on the fact that the biggest health care lobby is frantically trying to raise $$ for her in DC so that they can cram this “reform” through?
But she has a “D” after her name, which is all the lemmings need to see.
Your “analysis” and support is thoughtless and shameful.
2. I especially like this line:
“Voters who want to cast a critical eye on Washington without destroying the Democratic coalition should go for Coakley”
A critical eye, you mean the one she had on our corrupt state politicians? You know Dimasi, Wilkerson and Turner? Or maybe the priest who were molesting our children?
3. Endorse her? I thought perhaps you were running her campaign.
Will you next be running an article on how the Taliban is not in Afganistan anymore? If you are endorsing her, I assume that means you are supporting everything she says.
Is there any real fair and balanced journalism left?
So it seems like a newspaper editor’s life is no longer a happy one, now that the readers can talk back.