01/03/2010
On January 19, Massachusetts voters will elect either Republican state Senator Scott Brown, or state Attorney General Martha Coakley to Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat.
Scott Brown has recently created a buzz by airing an ad juxtaposing himself to President John F. Kennedy where both call for tax cuts to stimulate the economy [ See video ]. The ad has enraged liberals (probably because of its accuracy), but at least people have begun to talk about Brown, a virtual unknown until recently.
Martha Coakley, on the other hand, has long been a ruthless, headline-seeking prosecutor. A radical leftist, she would be a disaster for the nation.
Coakley has recently accused Brown of having ”no plans” for the country. But Brown has articulated a strong immigration enforcement position, at least on his websitewhile Coakley takes no position on immigration at all. Why? Perhaps because of what happened to Massachusetts Rep. Niki Tsongas.
In 2007, Tsongas, the widow of former Sen. Paul Tsongas, almost blew what should have been a cinch race for her husband’s former congressional district when she endorsed amnesty for illegal aliens. Jim Ogonowski, a local farmer, very nearly defeated Tsongas by running hard on immigration enforcement.
Tsongas squeaked by with just 51% of the vote, despite having a huge cash advantage and significant support from the political establishment.
So why isn’t Scott Brown running hard on immigration? That’s how a cash-strapped local farmer almost got elected in Massachusetts, and it’s the only thing that will elect Brown as well.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.