article in the Boston Globe, a very liberal newspaper, it sounds like Scott Brown did very well.
"But the sharpest exchanges came over national security, with Brown hammering Coakley for supporting civilian prosecution of suspected terrorists - including the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - and for not backing President Obama’s proposal to add troops in Afghanistan."
' “We are at war,’’ Brown said. “We’re at war in our airports. We’re at war in our shopping malls. I have to be honest with you, folks. . . . I’m scared at some of the policies that I’ve heard.’’ '
Coakley at times seemed annoyed by Brown’s rhetoric, accusing him of stretching the truth.
At times, Brown took umbrage when Coakley challenged him.
“I’m not in your courtroom,’’ he said at one point, as Coakley displayed a wry smile. “I’m not a defendant.’’
Brown also bristled at suggestions that the seat he was seeking was a Kennedy seat, despite being held for decades by a family member or confidant.
“With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedys’ seat,’’ Brown said. “It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.’’
“You can run against Bush-Cheney, but I’m Scott Brown,’’ Brown responded. “I live in Wrentham. I drive a truck.’’
He went on to assert that Coakley’s fiscal policies - her support for a health care overhaul, for rolling back the tax cuts signed by Bush, and for a cap-and-trade system to stem climate change - would raise taxes and cost jobs.
“There’s no one that’s listening right now that believes, Martha, that you are the tax-cutting candidate,’’ Brown said.
“The climate is always changing; it always has,’’ he said. “There’s a question of whether it’s manmade or natural, and it’s probably a combination of both.’’
But the Republican’s main goal last night seemed to be to try to cast Coakley as weak on terrorism.
“To think we’d give people who want to kill us constitutional rights and lawyer them up at our expense, instead of treating them as enemy combatants to get as much information as we can under legal means, it just makes no sense to me,’’ Brown said. “And it shows me that you don’t quite understand the law when it comes to enemy combatants versus terrorists versus United States citizens.