Wall Street Scourge Is Favored Dem to Replace Kennedy in Senate
Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley Would Be First Woman Elected to U.S. Senate
from Massachusetts
By TEDDY DAVIS

Dec. 8, 2009

When Massachusetts Democrats go to the polls today to nominate a
replacement for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Martha Coakley, the state
attorney general who is promising to pressure Wall Street for reforms,
is expected to come out on top.

"When Wall Street melted down, people in Massachusetts got burned," says
Coakley in one of her television ads. "The big banks and scam artists
that got us into this mess have got to be held accountable."

During her tenure as attorney general, Coakley has confronted Wall
Street banks for their role in the mortgage crisis. Earlier this year,
Coakley reached an agreement requiring Goldman Sachs to pay $60 million
to settle subprime lending claims brought by her office.

The settlement was called "historic" by financial observers because it
was the first settlement with a major investment bank over subprime
mortgages.

Overall, Coakley has recovered over $135 million from Wall Street for
taxpayers and consumers.

If elected to the Senate, Coakley is promising to work for loan
modifications when appropriate, so her constituents can hold onto their
homes. She is also promising to support enhanced regulation of mortgage
products and disclosure laws so that the homeowners can better
understand their mortgage terms.

Special elections are notoriously difficult to poll because it is hard
to predict who will turn out to vote. Massachusetts has never had a
statewide special election before and its top election official recently
predicted that voter turnout could be as low as 300,000 to 500,000.

Coakley is seen as the favorite, however, because the most recent,
methodologically sound public poll showed her with a 21-point lead over
her closest rival.

According to the Boston Globe-University of New Hampshire poll released
Nov. 18, Coakley had 43 percent support among likely Democratic voters,
Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., had 22 percent, Stephen Pagliuca, a
co-owner of the Boston Celtics, had 15 percent, and Alan Khazei, a
co-founder of City Year, a program which became the model for
AmeriCorps, had 6 percent. Thirteen percent of Massachusetts Democrats
said they were unsure.

Republicans are also holding a primary on Tuesday between state Sen.
Scott Brown and lawyer Jack Robinson.

A special general election between the Democratic and Republican nominee
will be held on Jan. 19.

All eyes are on the Democratic contest, however, because the state's
liberal tilt will make the Democratic nominee a big favorite to win next
month's showdown.

If Coakley goes on to win today's Democratic primary, analysts think
that she will have done so with the help of an early start, a statewide
base, and her status as the only woman in the race.

Coakley, who would be the first woman elected to the US Senate from
Massachusetts, underscored her gender during a recent debate.

Under fire from Pagliuca, one of her Democratic rivals, for saying that
she would have opposed the House-passed health-care bill because of the
abortion restrictions it included, Coakley suggested that she understood
the issue in a way that the Celtics co-owner couldn't.

"Steve," said Coakley, "it's personal with me, and it's personal with
every woman who's in this, who's watching this."

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

H the K (I post with a Mac) wrote:
Wall Street Scourge Is Favored Dem to Replace Kennedy in Senate
Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley Would Be First Woman Elected to U.S. Senate
from Massachusetts
By TEDDY DAVIS

Dec. 8, 2009

When Massachusetts Democrats go to the polls today to nominate a
replacement for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Martha Coakley, the state
attorney general who is promising to pressure Wall Street for reforms,
is expected to come out on top.

"When Wall Street melted down, people in Massachusetts got burned," says
Coakley in one of her television ads. "The big banks and scam artists
that got us into this mess have got to be held accountable."

During her tenure as attorney general, Coakley has confronted Wall
Street banks for their role in the mortgage crisis. Earlier this year,
Coakley reached an agreement requiring Goldman Sachs to pay $60 million
to settle subprime lending claims brought by her office.

The settlement was called "historic" by financial observers because it
was the first settlement with a major investment bank over subprime
mortgages.

Overall, Coakley has recovered over $135 million from Wall Street for
taxpayers and consumers.

If elected to the Senate, Coakley is promising to work for loan
modifications when appropriate, so her constituents can hold onto their
homes. She is also promising to support enhanced regulation of mortgage
products and disclosure laws so that the homeowners can better
understand their mortgage terms.

Special elections are notoriously difficult to poll because it is hard
to predict who will turn out to vote. Massachusetts has never had a
statewide special election before and its top election official recently
predicted that voter turnout could be as low as 300,000 to 500,000.

Coakley is seen as the favorite, however, because the most recent,
methodologically sound public poll showed her with a 21-point lead over
her closest rival.

According to the Boston Globe-University of New Hampshire poll released
Nov. 18, Coakley had 43 percent support among likely Democratic voters,
Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass., had 22 percent, Stephen Pagliuca, a
co-owner of the Boston Celtics, had 15 percent, and Alan Khazei, a
co-founder of City Year, a program which became the model for
AmeriCorps, had 6 percent. Thirteen percent of Massachusetts Democrats
said they were unsure.

Republicans are also holding a primary on Tuesday between state Sen.
Scott Brown and lawyer Jack Robinson.

A special general election between the Democratic and Republican nominee
will be held on Jan. 19.

All eyes are on the Democratic contest, however, because the state's
liberal tilt will make the Democratic nominee a big favorite to win next
month's showdown.

If Coakley goes on to win today's Democratic primary, analysts think
that she will have done so with the help of an early start, a statewide
base, and her status as the only woman in the race.

Coakley, who would be the first woman elected to the US Senate from
Massachusetts, underscored her gender during a recent debate.

Under fire from Pagliuca, one of her Democratic rivals, for saying that
she would have opposed the House-passed health-care bill because of the
abortion restrictions it included, Coakley suggested that she understood
the issue in a way that the Celtics co-owner couldn't.

"Steve," said Coakley, "it's personal with me, and it's personal with
every woman who's in this, who's watching this."

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

If she loses the confidence of the most liberal state in the nation,
watch for bigger and better things to happen in 2010. Yee Haw. Here's
hoping.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet,or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:43 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

If elected to the Senate, Coakley is promising to work for loan
modifications when appropriate, so her constituents can hold onto their
homes. She is also promising to support enhanced regulation of mortgage
products and disclosure laws so that the homeowners can better
understand their mortgage terms.


Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a
few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to
political reality, turns these people around.
The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the
rules.
It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman,
Dodd and the bankers who own them.

I used to do her when I was a teen in New Haven Connecticut where my
father owned the largest marina in the northeast.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:43 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

If elected to the Senate, Coakley is promising to work for loan
modifications when appropriate, so her constituents can hold onto their
homes. She is also promising to support enhanced regulation of mortgage
products and disclosure laws so that the homeowners can better
understand their mortgage terms.


Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a
few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to
political reality, turns these people around.
The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the
rules.
It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman,
Dodd and the bankers who own them.


Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He
remains against the Iraqi war.

Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an
agenda.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:41:43 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

If elected to the Senate, Coakley is promising to work for loan
modifications when appropriate, so her constituents can hold onto their
homes. She is also promising to support enhanced regulation of mortgage
products and disclosure laws so that the homeowners can better
understand their mortgage terms.


Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a
few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to
political reality, turns these people around.
The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the
rules.
It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman,
Dodd and the bankers who own them.


Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He
remains against the Iraqi war.

Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an
agenda.

I get excited when you talk like that.

--
Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a
few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to
political reality, turns these people around.
The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the
rules.
It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman,
Dodd and the bankers who own them.


Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He
remains against the Iraqi war.

Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an
agenda.


We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news.
In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he
should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital.

My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt
and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not
selling financial instruments of dubious value.
When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote
for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same
as the old boss".


Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Dec 9, 12:54*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a
few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to
political reality, turns these people around.
The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the
rules.
It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman,
Dodd and the bankers who own them.

Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He
remains against the Iraqi war.

Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an
agenda.

We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news.
In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he
should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital.

My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt
and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not
selling financial instruments of dubious value.
When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote
for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same
as the old boss".

Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq.

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It doesn't matter what exactly Obama said. What matters is what
Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly say what Obama said.

"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 12:54 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a
few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to
political reality, turns these people around.
The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the
rules.
It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman,
Dodd and the bankers who own them.

Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He
remains against the Iraqi war.

Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an
agenda.

We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news.
In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he
should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital.

My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt
and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not
selling financial instruments of dubious value.
When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote
for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same
as the old boss".

Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq.

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It doesn't matter what exactly Obama said. What matters is what
Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly say what Obama said.


Pardon me for forgetting this obvious fact!
--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 12:54 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:40:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Yeah, I remember when Obama was against the war too. It is funny how a
few million in "contributions" (read:bribes) and an awakening to
political reality, turns these people around.
The golden rule of politics is the people with the gold make the
rules.
It won't be long before she is in lock step with Gramm, Lieberman,
Dodd and the bankers who own them.

Which war are you talking about? He was never against the Afg. war. He
remains against the Iraqi war.

Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of trying to promote an
agenda.

We are still in the Iraq war, in case you are not watching the news.
In Jan 2009 Obama was also pretty soft on the Afghanistan war, as he
should be. It is another waste of money, lives and political capital.

My agenda is pretty simple, end the crusades, stop the hemorrhage debt
and try to build a viable economy that is based on real jobs, not
selling financial instruments of dubious value.
When I see a candidate who really has a plan to do that I will vote
for him/her. Since the late 80s it has been "meet the new boss, same
as the old boss".

Obama never said he would instantly withdraw us from Iraq.

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It doesn't matter what exactly Obama said. What matters is what
Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly say what Obama said.


Pardon me for forgetting this obvious fact!

Don't go being nice to Loogy. He doesn't believe all of my tall tales,
so I don't like him. If you want to be in our group, you have to fall in
line like Don and Scott Dickson.

--
Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:55:06 -0500, wrote:

You can see his position evolve if you follow this to the current
policy.
I still think he was completely wrong about Afghanistan, as was Bush.
We have nothing there we can win.

+++++++
At an otherwise uneventful hearing before the House Armed Services
Committee this morning, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in
Afghanistan, said something that should confirm and heighten most
people's apprehensions about the war's escalation.

McChrystal noted that he has accumulated several years of command
experience in that country since the war began. And yet, he confessed,
"There is much in Afghanistan that I do not understand."
+++++++

Fred Kaplan at www.slate.com