Audio: I, Martha Coakely, Running for Senate in Catholic Massachustt[e]s, Declare That Catholics Shouldn't Be Working In Emergency Rooms

Okay, just one more. I know I said I'd move on, but this is such a huge stumble I have to put up the audio.

Ben Smith says he doesn't understand why she'd stumble so badly on this question, given the fact (he thinks) that Massachusett[e]s' law is clear on this point and (he thinks) is fair about drawing the line between religious compulsion and duty to save lives.

Martha Coakley for Senate

No dirty drunken Irish need apply.

No filthy fish-eating Papists of any kind.

This woman's truly got some kind of gift.

Round-Up... From Boston-based Jules Crittenden.

Here's a tidbit -- a presumably liberal jagoff in the Boston Globe ranking on her.

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.

…

Back in December, Coakley beat her closest opponent by 19 points in a primary in which she got stronger by the day. She strolled into the general election with high name recognition, strong favorability ratings, and as the Democratic candidate in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972. It looked as if it would be impossible to lose.

So what did she do? Apparently, she’s tried to accomplish the impossible.

Literally, she all but vanished. She refused to debate on TV unless it was exactly on her terms. She went days without venturing out in public. When she did appear, it was typically to accept endorsements from elected officials or union heads in front of supportive crowds. She may have gone the first month of the campaign without ever meeting an honest-to-goodness rank-and-file undecided resident.

Ehhh... bear in mind, he's trying to do the old liberal excuse-making thing of blaming the messenger, not the message. Under no circumstances will he wonder why Scott Brown even ever had a chance here; that is to say, he will never ponder why it is that Coakley's errors should even have been relevant at all.

And the reason for that, of course, is that Obama's agenda is very unpopular. But they won't admit that.

Yet.

Wednesday morning, January 20th, 2010, we may hear the first tentative admissions of just that.

posted by Ace at 10:57 AM

| Access Comments