"Win Ugly."
The Boston Herald says "Poll Shocker," -- showing Brown up 50-45.5 over Coakley -- and the Martha Coakley campaign is now at the point it will stop panicking and start fighting. Cornered, outgunned, humbled, mocked, the Coakley team will now concentrate on the order from the White House to "win ugly." Spoke to Scott Rasmussen of the Rasmussen Poll, whose polling 24 hours before the Suffolk poll showed Coakley at 49-47; and he said the momentum was the vital detail for Brown. Also turn-out, as the independents are motivated. Boston source says that Martha's attack ads on Brown play every hour on all Boston talkers and news, and that every fifth word is "Republican." Also, there are those rumors of union thugs driving buses circling the wilder sides of town for random volunteer voters.
Only rumors of SEIU thugs? They must be slipping. They will deliver Mass. to Obama if they have to shoot voters going into the polls, since we all know the DoJ won't investigate voter intimidation.
John,
Bob Zimmer on your program referred to Ian Smith's site regarding the engineered NOAA data points. I couldn't understand what he said when he gave the website where Smith's analysis is located. Can you give us the site url?
This is exactly what happens when you have one-party rule. Success and failure can no longer be determined independently. These are defined by a single source only: the party. In fact, such terms as 'success' and 'failure' are struck from the national conversation. This is another way of saying that there is no longer a choice; that we are condemned to follow along the path put forth by the party. If that path should lead us off the cliff and the weather is clear and bright, and everyone can plainly see the abyss yawning ahead, the opportunity to opt out or take a detour is denied. We become victims; sheep; Jews herded into ovens. Who remains to stop them from doing anything? Why on earth would we give anyone so much power over us to begin with? Well, we’ve practically already done so.
This is a chance for us to roll it back merely by spitting into the wind; to show our opposition to what we have good reason to believe is happening - or at, least, express our reservations. Why would anybody throw that away – even if they agree with Obama; even if they hate Bush and Republicans to confound all reason - this idea of checks and balances? The latest polls show Brown up by 4. This is not enough. Brown must be up by enough so that ACORN’s fraud and the media's spin can't possibly make up the difference.
There will be plenty of fraud this time around. It will originate on the Democrat side. Under Barack Hussein Obama's leadership there are no systems in place to stem (election) fraud; to investigate; make it public; punish. Under the leadership of Barack Hussein Obama, the ends justify the means. Under the leadership of Barack Hussein Obama, the means represent anything that will serve to enslave the people of this once great nation to the whims of eternal malcontents; to tear it down; to castrate it; to present it as a bloody offering to the Darwinists who openly practice the tyranny of brutality around the world; those who grow pale at the mention of America as it once was.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
How can Coakley win (or lose) any way besides ugly?
Peter, let's actually see if Brown wins first before we start crying foul. I've said this before, I know, but I always found the Democrats' inability to ever accept the fact that GWB actually won Florida in 2000, by any independent observer's count, as downright puerile on their part. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross was wrong: with a Democrat, it's Denial-Anger-Bargaining-Depression-Denial-Anger-Bargaining-Depression-Denial ...etc. without ever getting to acceptance.
I'm not happy about BO winning in 2008 but I know he did and I know why he did. It's because not enough conservatives gave a hoot to go and poke holes in their ballots and were willing to suffer this miserable regime instead.
Suffolk Research (the poll that has Brown up by 4 points) is headed by a man named Paleologos.... that's the family name of one of the last royal families of Byzantium. Cool ... of course the spellings are all off by a letter here or there, but it's definitely the same name.