A Nanospectre is Haunting the Big Blue Friends of Senator Coakley. Finally.

Dear Dr. Bones,



With fifty-secven, I think it is, shopping days left, that cloud no larger than Fabulous Fernie’s fratboy’s hand has finally been spotted from aboard the Great Blue Hill. Sort of spotted.

It is characteristic of the complacent self-wunnerfulness of the Greater Blazers that it is left to some underposter one does not recall having heard of before this post to attempt to raise a little alarum.

Of the Great-Blazerly methodology, it is characteristic how our old pal the Patroniser of Public Transport here sets out to be preëmptively fairembalanced when the little shepherd lass’s piteous cries of "¡Wolf to starboard!" finally get through to him. A patroniser of the official warrenmongers also, his Worship seems to be, though evidently not a ’monger himself personally.

Solidarity with ’mongerdom looks very firm: when the hired hands actually blowing it for us have done, the PPT will be able to look back at the record here created--created by himself, for himself--and single out Prophetic Words that explained in advance how the coherent implementation of a programme whose worth is difficult to evaluate becomes even more so when one’s client is only a FEW points behind. Of course was Her Beatitude down 70-20, or maybe only 60-30, there would be no problem. Of course. But ¿how is a mere mortal to cope with what Talking Points Memo calls 48.3 - 43.2? ¡With a mere 5.1% gap, the gods themselves contend in vain!

Though tempted, I suppose it would be a mistake to guess that the Patroniser secretly hopes Her Beatitude fails. His Worship is not going to be as unhappy about the failure as we shall be, but that is not the same thing as a positive craving for Fratboy an Fratboy’s Fernie.

But here Eye is doing just what the Patroniser does himself, answering the tripe and baloney before Eye gets out of the way and permit you have an unobstructed whiff. ¡Tusk, tusk!

Does Elizabeth Warren actually want to win or just teach us her views? locallady | Sun, Sep 9, 2012 10:47 AM EST To be fair, I think Warren’s ads have indeed mentioned Sen. Brown. But I "locallady" is not the only one making these points these days. Being just a few points down, I’m quite sure the campaign is listening to a lot of unsolicited advice; It’s hard to know what’s valuable, and then what you can actually implement in a coherent way. What I would like to see: 1.) Yes, more contrast, as this poster says; and 2.) More vision of what precisely a Senator Warren would try to get done. We on the left feel that her heart’s in the right place, but the contrasts with Brown will be starker, and her campaign more vivid and optimistic, with distinct proposals to flesh out the vision. It’s a risk, but a sensible and good one, IMO. - promoted by charley-on-the-mta Please note I support Elizabeth. I am a liberal Democratic, with a capital D. I have sent her campaign money and for awhile did phoning for her campaign. But I am unwilling to make calls any longer because I feel as though she does not want to win. This should not be shocking to many of you. Yvonne Abraham pointed out this same issue in a recent Globe newspaper column. But it does not seem to have gotten through to her or her campaign staff, who one would assume want to win. She runs these interesting but not hard hitting (unless you believe she is running against all Republicans in general or against Romney) TV ads. I don’t believe I have yet seen or heard an ad from her campaign that mentions she is running against Scott Brown, nor that differentiates them at all and of course there are huge differences that matter. She certainly has not run an ad pointing out that he is no moderate independent, as his radio and TV ads imply. Her ads are wimpy at best, and do not push the differences between what a Democratic senator would do versus a Republican, Scott Brown. I don’t believe she has ever mentioned his name in a TV or radio ad. I understand she is great out in the field, but many people do not go to rallies for candidates and don’t even read the newspapers sadly. We all know TV and radio can be very effective when done right. She has allowed him to not only define himself as a pleasant moderate who won’t vote for anything that would upset Massachusetts voters (such bullshit!) but to even to define her in some ways. Yesterday on the Up with Chris Hayes show on MSNBC Cong. Nadler from New York said how once Sen. Kennedy was replaced by Scott Brown the Republicans had and continue to have a filibuster proof Senate. He said it better than I am saying it and it would make a great ad. But again the Warren campaign won’t use it and because of her agreement with Brown, no outside group can advertise. He may have more money overall but she has plenty to run the weak ads, why not spend money actually trying to win by pointedly showing the differences? Is this going to turn out to be Martha 2 but from a different perspective? locallady Recommended by david, trickle-up, heartlanddem.

Ad quem responduisset Patricius McTammany

(( Potential or actual or esprit-d’escalier kneejerk occasioned by the Blue Challenge )) Happy days.

(( Concluding unscientific postscript ))

Happy days.
--JHM



A Nanospectre is Haunting the Big Blue Friends of Senator Coakley. Finally.