Freedom and Equality at the Expense of a Little Negativity

If the non-stop barrage of commercials and automated phone calls from politicians, their families, and Curt Schilling related to the special election for US Senator from Massachusetts have left me with only one impression, it is that I disagree with Republican candidate Scott Brown's oversimplified view of the world. 

I am strongly pro-choice, strongly pro-equal protection including supporting gay rights, and strongly pro-due process of law.  I am particularly offended by the commercials in which Brown states that the Constitution was written to only protect US citizens rather than terrorists.  As the most powerful nation in the world, no one benefits more when other nations follow international law than we do.  It is therefore in our interest to set an example and to help enforce international norms.  More importantly, however, we need to use due process of law to determine who is a terrorist.  Otherwise, there is no protection for innocent American citizens from being persecuted and arrested based solely on suspicion or error.  In a country where we are unable to remove ten year old American citizens from the "no fly list" if they share a name with a suspected terrorist, we need to extend procedural due process to everyone.

Tomorrow, however, I am voting for Martha Coakley, even more than I am voting against Scott Brown.  I am disappointed with the fact that she launched negative campaigning first.  Yet I strongly respect her record on corporate accountability, civil liberties, and equality.  While I would prefer lower taxes, the fiscal situation created by the Bush Administration is precarious, and I believe drastically slashing taxes could be economically disastrous.  I do have some reservations about health care reform, but I would rather give the Democrats a fillibuster-proof majority with a staunch pro-choice advocate then make the health care agenda dependent upon potentially dangerous compromises, such as occurred in the House.

Comments

[T with Honey]

Are there any Scott Brown supporters in the New England Mamas contributors list? After 2 Coakley posts I'm feeling a bit in the minority and would love to see something from the other side of the election.

[Tania - Chicky Chicky Baby]

T with Honey - I agree, it would great to see the other side. Each of the NE Mamas was given the opportunity to write about their thoughts on the election but I guess there's more Coakley supporters than Brown supporters. You're more than welcome to add your thoughts in the comments, however!

[Deb]

The same Martha Coakley who gave serial child molestor Father John Geoghan 1 year of probation?

The same Martha Coakley who drug her feet to prosecute an INFANT rapist, and then agreed to release him RoR after he was indicted?

The same Martha Coakley who branded wrongly jailed Gerald Amirault (Fells Acres) as a sex offender and kept him in jail long after he was determined to be innocent?

Even if I were a Democrat, I would stay home before I cast a vote for her. She is not a good person.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/something_about_martha.html

[Margaret]

I am not a Martha Coakley supporter, but also am not comfortable with writing political commentary. Also, not a MA resident.

That being said, today is turning out to be a good day - the results of the special election, that someone mentioned spring is only 8 w 2 d away and so far, no puppy puddles to clean up!