Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And here's the real kicker, I don't think the Boston Globe expects her to win, so now they are going to blame her for a terrible campaign, which it appears it was.
she should have hired a "ghost candidate" to stand in for her
she should have hired a "ghost candidate" to stand in for her
pretty sure she's channeling Teddy right now
).
she should have hired a "ghost candidate" to stand in for her
pretty sure she's channeling Teddy right now
Teddy who? Teddy the Bear? because it's damn sure not Teddy Kennedy since as much as I disagreed with Ted Kennedy he was a talented politician and would never have run such an inept campaign, I'm quite sure Ted Kennedy is rolling over in his grave about now (which personally I find pleasing
And here's the real kicker, I don't think the Boston Globe expects her to win, so now they are going to blame her for a terrible campaign, which it appears it was.
Agreed, to steal a line from the movie "Casino" it appears that Martha could "Fuck up a cup of coffee", she should have hired a "ghost candidate" to stand in for her since I haven't seen a campaign run this poorly since Michael Dukakis ran for President.
This is a good article and from the very liberal newspaper- The Boston Globe.
Race is in a spinout - The Boston Globe
Martha Coakley made a jaw-dropping declaration earlier this week at the only live televised debate in Boston that she has deigned to do. She said, and I quote, “I’ve traveled the state and met tremendous people.’’
If she did, it was under the cover of darkness, with an assumed name.
Gawd Sinatra you had better hope nobody sees this thread because nobody who does will EVER be able to take you seriously ever again. ROTFLMFAO! IDIOTS!
Well Cold fusion 38, I finally overcame my embarassment and crawled out from under my desk.I see Sinatra did too. Our sock puppets have been talking to each other and it seems that the desperation is coming from YOU.
Now while the gap between Brown and Coakley appears too good to be true, it clearly supports yet again the strong trending toward Scott Brown...
___
January 14th, 2010 11:30 pm
Massachusetts shocker: Brown Up 15% in Pajamas Media/CrossTarget Poll
A new poll taken Thursday evening for Pajamas Media by CrossTarget an Alexandria VA survey research firm shows Scott Brown, a Republican, leading Martha Coakley, a Democrat, by 15.4% in Tuesdays special election for the open Massachusetts US Senate seat. The poll of 946 likely voters was conducted by telephone using interactive voice technology (IVR) and has a margin of error of +/- 3.19%.
Roger L. Simon » Massachusetts shocker: Brown Up 15% in Pajamas Media/CrossTarget Poll
He supports the right to deny rape victims medication on religious grounds. We don't need anymore Religious Right advocates in the beltway.
He supports the right to deny rape victims medication on religious grounds. We don't need anymore Religious Right advocates in the beltway.
Link?
Scott Brown daughters answer Martha Coakley’s abortion criticism - BostonHerald.comHe supports the right to deny rape victims medication on religious grounds. We don't need anymore Religious Right advocates in the beltway.
Link?
He supports the right to deny rape victims medication on religious grounds. We don't need anymore Religious Right advocates in the beltway.
Link?
there is no link because that statement is a flat out lie.
Brown is opposed to forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. He is not opposed to offering medical aid to rape victims.
Scott Brown daughters answer Martha Coakley’s abortion criticism - BostonHerald.comHe supports the right to deny rape victims medication on religious grounds. We don't need anymore Religious Right advocates in the beltway.
Link?
That stems from the when brown, in 2005, proposed a legislative amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. Brown later voted for the final bill, which did not include the amendment.
As you can see, in desperation, many are trying to distort what the man is like. It ok it only makes coakley look even worse than she already does.
If you want to meet Scott Brown face to face he will be in plymouth today, 11 am, 74 long pond road....you can meet me there too
From your link:Link?
there is no link because that statement is a flat out lie.
Brown is opposed to forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. He is not opposed to offering medical aid to rape victims.
No it is not a lie. In 2005 he proposed an Amendment to a Bill that would allow healthcare workers the right to deny emergency contraceptive to rape victims. That is advocating denying medication to rape victims on the grounds of religion. Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims. You can read the text of his amendment here:
Bay State Battle | FactCheck.org
Still, the ad is basically on track, factually, until we come to a claim that "Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims." Its true that in 2005, when the Massachusetts state Legislature was considering a bill to require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, Brown introduced an amendment that would have let doctors and nurses opt out based on "a sincerely held religious belief" and refer patients elsewhere. It was similar to "conscience" provisions in state and federal legislation that would avoid forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion or contraception against the teachings of the church. Heres the language:
Brown amendment, April 2005: Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.The amendment failed. But what the ad doesnt mention is that Brown voted for the underlying bill anyway, even after the Republican governor vetoed it.
If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.
The most misleading part of the ad, though, is not what the narrator says, but what appears on screen. As the contraception amendment is mentioned, viewers see the words, "Deny rape victims care." Emergency contraception is certainly a type of care. But the language on screen implies that Brown would support denial of even, say, treatment of injuries sustained in a rape.
Thats far from the truth. The bill, which became part of the Massachusetts state codes section on public health, required that rape victims be provided with accurate information about emergency contraception and that they be offered it. Brown voted for the bill after unsuccessfully trying to carve out a religion exception. And there is nothing in the record that we are aware of to suggest that Brown ever supported denying any other type of care to victims of sexual assault.
Voters go to the polls on Tuesday.
by Viveca Novak
From your link:there is no link because that statement is a flat out lie.
Brown is opposed to forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. He is not opposed to offering medical aid to rape victims.
No it is not a lie. In 2005 he proposed an Amendment to a Bill that would allow healthcare workers the right to deny emergency contraceptive to rape victims. That is advocating denying medication to rape victims on the grounds of religion. Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims. You can read the text of his amendment here:
Bay State Battle | FactCheck.org
Still, the ad is basically on track, factually, until we come to a claim that "Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims." It’s true that in 2005, when the Massachusetts state Legislature was considering a bill to require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, Brown introduced an amendment that would have let doctors and nurses opt out based on "a sincerely held religious belief" and refer patients elsewhere. It was similar to "conscience" provisions in state and federal legislation that would avoid forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion or contraception against the teachings of the church. Here’s the language:
Brown amendment, April 2005: Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.The amendment failed. But what the ad doesn’t mention is that Brown voted for the underlying bill anyway, even after the Republican governor vetoed it.
If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.
The most misleading part of the ad, though, is not what the narrator says, but what appears on screen. As the contraception amendment is mentioned, viewers see the words, "Deny rape victims care." Emergency contraception is certainly a type of care. But the language on screen implies that Brown would support denial of even, say, treatment of injuries sustained in a rape.
That’s far from the truth. The bill, which became part of the Massachusetts state code’s section on public health, required that rape victims be provided with accurate information about emergency contraception and that they be offered it. Brown voted for the bill after unsuccessfully trying to carve out a religion exception. And there is nothing in the record that we are aware of to suggest that Brown ever supported denying any other type of care to victims of sexual assault.
Voters go to the polls on Tuesday.
– by Viveca Novak
Link?
there is no link because that statement is a flat out lie.
Brown is opposed to forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. He is not opposed to offering medical aid to rape victims.
No it is not a lie. In 2005 he proposed an Amendment to a Bill that would allow healthcare workers the right to deny emergency contraceptive to rape victims. That is advocating denying medication to rape victims on the grounds of religion. Apparently the Coakley campaign put out an ad about it that was misleading in some ways, but the fact remains he advocated healthcare workers should have the right to deny EC to rape victims. You can read the text of his amendment here:
Bay State Battle | FactCheck.org
