"The liberal agenda" is a phrase often used by conversations to scare the pants off their own supporters. And they're right! They should be scared. The liberal agenda was voted on in November of 2008 and won squarely. I'm not one to claim a mandate on political agendas, nor even willing to claim the majority gets to overun a country, but the clear, resounding result, was the vote for change and a vote for progressive policy and ideals that say to your neighbor, "where are you hurting?" and "what can I do for you today? You can argue whether that change has come about yet, but you cannot argue that is exactly what happened in the last election cycle.

Fast forward to 2010 and there is a heated battle for the Senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy. The only reason this is even a close race is because the state Democrats put forth a seriously questionable candidate in Martha Coakley. No matter, I say.  The alternate is Scott Brown, a self-proclaimed independent who is anything but.  Scott Brown should lose for the following two reasons:

1. He can't claim a campaign of change when the "other" party just won on the same idea, resoundingly, and Brown's ideals are exactly opposite of that change.
2. His whole campaign platform boils down to one word, two characters; "NO."  He has stated that he will, for all intents and purposes, fight tooth and nail and vote against everything the Democrats want.

If there are any liberals out there who are upset with the current leadership in D.C., I can tell you for sure that I feel your pain. The current health care bill is far too moderate in how it does what it attempts to do. Having President Obama publically proclaim "bipartisanship" a key point in negotiations over legislation when the other party refuses to negotiate is a sore spot for me as well.

However, a vote for Martha Coakley isn't a vote for yourself, or even for the citizens of Massachusetts. Its a vote for liberal and progressive ideals that America has been striving and moving toward all our lives. Racial tensions may not have disappeared, and people may die for lack of adequate healthcare, but on balance we are becoming a better society than we were 20, 50 or even 200 years ago.

I ask you to accept the imperfect candiate and look foward beyond your own interests. Its challenging to consider the delicate balance between "how does this help others" versus "what is in it for me," but it is high time we move toward the former and away from the latter.

Please vote for Martha Coakley on Jan 19th.

Add your comment

Your name:
Comment (you may use HTML tags here):
Word verification:
	Post Preview

yvComment v.1.19.2