This was too long in coming.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is set to announce the news at today's press briefing, This past Monday, Gibbs had said that there were no plans to visit Massachusetts.
The polls have been all over the place on this election, but are in general agreement in the sense that the turnout model matters very seriously. If younger voters and more committed Democrats turn out, Coakley will win. If older and less Democratic voters make up a greater part of the electorate, Republican nominee Scott Brown will win. Obama's involvement could potentially make the difference for Coakley in turning out his natural support base -- and if it doesn't, expect a lot of talk in the press about how Obama couldn't win the race.
Late Update: As expected, Gibbs announced that Obama will stop in Boston Sunday after a visit to a Washington D.C. church earlier in the day.
Gibbs also took a swipe at Brown using the latest Democratic party talking points, and said Obama "sees a pretty clear distinction" between Coakley who he views as a fighter for Massachusetts and "a candidate on the other side who feels comfortable fighting for the insurance industry and big banks."
Asked about Coakley's tanking poll numbers, Gibbs said Obama was "happy to have a campaign on whether you're for the status quo, protecting insurance company profits, bank company profits."… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <TPM>
In my view, Coakley made the same error Hillary Clinton made, early in the Democratic primaries: she assumed the job was already hers. I certainly hope her campaign can be salvaged, because there can be nothing accomplished in the Senate if Brown wins. All our progressive causes will be dead in the water.
Let’s examine Brown’s support.
Major U.S. banks which instigated the financial crisis are set to pay out “record” bonuses and compensation — $145 billion by some estimates. State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate running for the special U.S. Senate election next week, announced yesterday that he would oppose the recently announced financial crisis responsibility fee on large banks.
Brown’s defense of the financial industry has not been ignored by Wall Street. Wall Street’s two largest political enforcers are also out fighting to elect him:
– The Wall Street front group FreedomWorks is mobilizing get out the vote efforts for Brown this weekend. FreedomWorks organized the very first tea party protests, and has used its extensive staff and resources to mobilize rallies and advocacy campaigns on behalf of corporate interests. Dick Armey, who as a corporate lobbyist represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouit, is the leader of FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks is also funded and chaired by Steve Forbes and Frank Sands of Sands Capital Management.
– The Wall Street front group Club for Growth is strongly “boosting” Brown and is expected to run ads in support for him. According to recent disclosures, the Club for Growth is funded by a $1.4 million dollar donation from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc, a $1.4 million dollar donation from broker Richard Gilder, and $210,000-$630,000 donations from at least 10 other investors and financial industry professionals. The Club is also supporting a slate of candidates to repeal health reform, while its other endorsed candidates have opposed a financial truth commission.
According to a ThinkProgress analysis of Brown’s latest Federal Elections Commission disclosures (part 1, part 2, part 3), filed on Jan. 8 and 11, business executives and Wall Street executives have lavished Brown’s campaign coffers with 11th hour contributions… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
Brown is the paid mouthpiece for the banksters and baggers, opposed to all things progressive, but to see just how far to the extremely ideologue right he is, consider this.
One month after the September 11th attacks, Scott Brown was one of only three Massachusetts State Representatives to vote against a bill to provide financial assistance to Red Cross workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts, we’ve learned.
The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances.
The 9/11 attacks flared as an issue in the Massachusetts race today. The NRSC sharply criticized Democrat Martha Coaxley over a DSCC ad, first reported by Politico, that flashed an image of the Twin Towers. Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Brown today, also slammed Coakley over the ad, saying it was “unthinkable” and “offensive.”
On October 17th, 2001, Brown voted against a bill that would authorize “leaves of absence for certain Red Cross employees participating in Red Cross emergencies.” The bill gave 15 days of paid leave each year to state workers called up by the Red Cross to respond to disasters. At the time, state workers called for such emergencies were required to use sick and vacation days… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <The Plumline>
What a creep! It’s hard to goose-step with stiffer knees than this. The notion that this scum could win the Senate seat held for decades by Teddy Kennedy boggles the mind. Do you know anyone in Massachusetts? If so, please call them. Ask them to vote for Coakley. Ask them to contact all their local friends to vote for her.