Brown, Coakley accentuate stances on terrorism, economy

Race for Senate is getting hotter

By Stephanie Ebbert and Matt Viser
Globe Staff / January 15, 2010

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

  • E-mail|
  • Print|
  • Reprints|
  • |
Text size +

NEW BEDFORD - With all eyes trained on the state’s increasingly heated race for a pivotal seat in the US Senate, the major-party candidates made divergent appeals to undecided voters yesterday, with Republican Scott Brown intensifying his message on terrorism and Democrat Martha Coakley dwelling on economic insecurity.

Brown, buoyed by several polls indicating a closer-than-expected race, kept hammering his message on national security, calling Coakley naive for suggesting that terrorists are gone from Afghanistan and for opposing President Obama’s planned troop increase there.

Coakley toured a New Bedford clothing factory to highlight her job creation plan and sought to link Brown to what she called the “failed economic policies’’ of the Bush-Cheney administration. She challenged her opponent to take a position on Obama’s new proposal for a bailout tax on the nation’s largest banks for up to 10 years, to recoup taxpayers’ investment in the recovery.

“I would support this proposal because it holds the largest Wall Street firms accountable for their abuses that caused millions of people to lose their jobs, as well as it works to recover the hard-earned taxpayer dollars of the middle class,’’ Coakley said in a statement.

Asked by a reporter, Brown initially declined to state his position on Obama’s proposal.

Later, his campaign released a statement saying he opposes it. “Scott Brown is opposed to higher taxes, especially in the midst of a severe recession,’’ his campaign said. “Martha Coakley’s tax-raising policies will make it harder to get our economy back on the right track.’’

Today, both candidates will get a boost from leaders in their respective parties. Former New York mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, whose leadership on Sept. 11, 2001 made him famous, will campaign with Brown through the North End. Coakley gets a visit today from Bill Clinton.

It remains unclear whether Obama would visit Massachusetts on her behalf this weekend, but he recorded a Web video asking voters to rally behind Coakley’s campaign and lauds her work taking on “Wall Street schemes, insurance company abuses, and big polluters.’’

Yesterday, Brown sought to target Coakley for saying during a debate Monday night that the United States does not need to beef up its military presence in Afghanistan because terrorists are now concentrated in Yemen and Pakistan.

Last month, in a speech explaining his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, Obama called the region “the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda.’’

“It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak,’’ he said.

Joined by veterans, Brown told reporters at the Omni Parker House hotel: “Martha Coakley’s statement on Monday reveals a deeply troubling lack of awareness and understanding of the threats facing our troops and on our national security.’’

Coakley defended her comments, while acknowleding that some Al Qaeda members remain in Afghanistan.

“The only point is this, that Al Qaeda is not a country and it is a moveable enterprise,’’ Coakley told reporters. “What we are concerned about is Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-trained terrorists who want to attack us on our homeland, and we need to be smart about how we use our resources.’’

Asked whether Brown’s military background gave him standing on national security, she said, “I disagree,’’ and pointed to her record as a prosecutor.

“I’ve spent 25 years keeping people safe, including right after 9/11,’’ said Coakley, who pointed out that her father was a veteran of World War II and the Korean War. “I cede my patriotism to no one.’’

Brown, a 30-year member of the Army National Guard, once again criticized Coakley’s support for civilian trials for terrorism suspects, saying that what they need now is not more lawyers.

But Brown, himself a judge advocate general, acknowledged that suspected terrorists have representation from taxpayer-funded lawyers like himself at military tribunals. “That’s fine; I’m satisfied with that,’’ he said.

Brown made the distinction that in court, suspected terrorists could get “rights that they’re not entitled to, for example taking the Fifth, which a lot of them are doing.’’

Yesterday afternoon, Coakley toured the Joseph Abboud Manufacturing Corp. clothing factory in New Bedford, highlighting the need for more jobs in the state’s high-tech sector, fishing industry, and cranberry bogs.

“There’s no reason that we in Massachusetts can’t be the leader in returning quality manufacturing back here,’’ Coakley said.

Coakley, who has tried to portray Brown as a far-right conservative Republican, said: “Let Scott Brown stand behind and tell people what he really stands for. He won’t answer questions about choice. He won’t answer questions about who he really is.’’

Brown continued to resist the characterization, telling reporters that he eschews labels. On Wednesday, he characterized as inaccurate assertions by Coakley’s campaign that, as a state senator, he voted 96 percent of the time with Republicans under Senate minority leader Richard Tisei, even though he said he was proud to stand up against spending and taxing in Massachusetts.

A few hours later, in a radio interview, Brown said: “I love how they say I voted 90-plus times percent of the time with the Senator Tisei. Well I’m guilty.’’

Brown has been enjoying a surge of national interest in his campaign - several polls have shown him closing the gap with Coakley - and yesterday he released a new television ad, called “Momentum,’’ in which he meets and greets voters on the streets of South Boston.

The possibility that a Republican could claim the seat held by Edward M. Kennedy for 47 years has energized both campaigns. Outside groups have been pouring money into negative television ads on behalf of their candidates.

Yesterday, the League of Conservation Voters added to the mix, with a $350,000 ad buy criticizing Brown’s environmental record.

Andrea Estes of the Globe staff contributed to this report.