The W
Views: 99364768
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.10.14 0112
The W - Current Events & Politics - Scott Brown projected WINNER in Senate race!
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.87
Pages: 1 2 Next
(179 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (36 total)
CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered








Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!

Since last post: 1077 days
Last activity: 214 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.17
A major victory for the Republicans tonight. The honeymoon may be over for Obama and Democrats!

http://www.cnn.com/​2010/​POLITICS/​01/​19/​massachusetts.senate/​index.html?​hpt=T1


R.I.P. Obama's healthcare

(edited by CajunMan on 19.1.10 2047)
Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 42 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.98
Who had CajunMan in the pool? (Everybody!)



CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered








Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!

Since last post: 1077 days
Last activity: 214 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.17
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Who had CajunMan in the pool? (Everybody!)



But I did not use FOX as my source, so that cuts half. LOL
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 457 days
Last activity: 457 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.87
Henry Cabot Lodge's seat has been reclaimed.
This might have been one of the worst choke jobs in political history. 20 plus point lead with less than 3 weeks to go with a seat that has been Democratic for 57 years and you lose by more than 5? You can't try to lose like that. Obama gets hurt as his track record of trying to rescue candidates is far worse than the Mendoza line, Bill Clinton gets hurt as he goes from trying to save Haiti to rushing to Massachusetts, and imbeciles get hurt as ripping local sporting legends, saying that shaking hands with the common folks is beneath you and not knowing how to spell the name of the state you are running for office in in your commercials does not pay off in victory.
Time to play everyone's favorite game: Democrats in a circle shooting at each other.
Also, if the Democrats spin is that it is George Bush's fault that Scott Brown won, wouldn't that be a positive for Bush, as Brown is a Republican? Hope they can come up with some better spin than that.

(edited by redsoxnation on 19.1.10 2159)
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
Thought it was interesting. I started hearing about brown just a couple weeks ago - looked like he and Coakley were evenish in experience. and even though NRO said it was possible, I discounted it.

I am encouraged and have good hopes for this. This forces senate legislation efforts to be bipartison again, which is always good. Neither side can force anything through anymore.

As a conservative, I must admit to enjoying the fact that Kennedy's seat goes to a republican. But now, Americans, to work. Let's get health care done right - and cut back on spending.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 12 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.69
This just goes to prove that no matter where you are or what a state's political leaning is, no party can overcome having a really crappy candidate. From all reports, Martha 'Chokeley' Coakley barely did any campaigning while Scott Brown pounded the pavement from day one. Short of Ted Kennedy's ghost actually coming back and endorsing Coakley, she was toast.

To recap....the USA now has a Democratic senator in Alaska and a Republican senator in Massachusetts. Wacky.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    This forces senate legislation efforts to be bipartisan again, which is always good. Neither side can force anything through anymore.

    But now, Americans, to work. Let's get health care done right - and cut back on spending.


These two statements aren't compatible. Health care can't be bipartisan since Republicans are 100 percent dead-set against affordable health care* passing on Obama's watch, since that give the Dems a huge political victory they can ride for the next 20 years. All attempts to get people like the Maine senators on board were just pissing in the wind.

* = Or, to be less specific, Republicans are 100 percent dead-set pretty much anything Obama tries to do. It's hard to be bi-partisan when the other side will vote against you no matter what.





Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 62 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Thought it was interesting. I started hearing about brown just a couple weeks ago - looked like he and Coakley were evenish in experience. and even though NRO said it was possible, I discounted it.

    I am encouraged and have good hopes for this. This forces senate legislation efforts to be bipartison again, which is always good. Neither side can force anything through anymore.

    As a conservative, I must admit to enjoying the fact that Kennedy's seat goes to a republican. But now, Americans, to work. Let's get health care done right - and cut back on spending.

When exactly have legislation efforts been bipartisan? Did I miss the great compromises of the Bush years?

RSN has it right though. Somehow despite having razor-thin majorities in both houses Bush 43 got through pretty much everything he wanted. Yet given huge majorities the Democrats couldn't figure out how to keep from tripping over their own junk. Until the Democrats learn how to enforce party discipline in the same ruthless way as the GOP this will be the story of them.

Not sad to see this awful healthcare giveaway to the insurance companies fall by the wayside though.



2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
It's late, and I don't have time to be specific, but many things in the bush years were bipartisian - most of which I didn't dig.

for example, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was certainly a bill that members on both sides favored and opposed.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2003-332

Several Republicans voted no as did most democrats. and most Republicans votes yes, and several democrats votes with them. That sounds pretty bipartisian

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
Senate Unanimously Passes Iraq Liberation Act, Oct 7
(guess that's what you mean by bipartisian?)

like
H. J. Res. 114 [107th]: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
29 dems and 49 Reps votes Aye in the senate.
21 Dems and 1 Rep and 1 independent voted Nay

seeming bipartisianship to me

of course, this doesn't happen when one side has enough votes to push it through no matter what the other side says. But if they don't, like it will be now, they have to make the bill acceptable to more people.

The republicans, in the house and senate, have proposed more than 30 health care reform bills or amendments. NONE have been voted on the floor. because that IS a simple majority vote. So, should they just let anything go through, changing 1/6th of the economy, especially when our government has proved they can't do much of anything effectively? No.





We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.39
I amazed at how poorly the Democratic machine ran this election. Special elections are tough, but this should have been a slam dunk for them.

redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 457 days
Last activity: 457 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.87
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    This just goes to prove that no matter where you are or what a state's political leaning is, no party can overcome having a really crappy candidate. From all reports, Martha 'Chokeley' Coakley barely did any campaigning while Scott Brown pounded the pavement from day one. Short of Ted Kennedy's ghost actually coming back and endorsing Coakley, she was toast.









Here's the problem with saying she was a crappy candidate: She won a 4 way primary that featured a US rep by 19 points. She didn't win the race win a narrow 26 percent. Republican Senatorial Committee bailed with a few weeks to go, which actually helped Brown because it kept them from going going negative for him. She started bumbling, the race got close, she wouldn't debate 1 on 1, only allowing debating if Libertarian Joe Kennedy (who shockingly wasn't able to capitalize on the stupid vote to any degree) participated, and then when it got to 9 points Gergen throws the 'How can you be against Health Care Reform if you are in Ted Kennedy's Seat' question in a debate to Brown, and the tidal wave developed.
This also shows in the new era of fund raising, if people start to smell blood in the water, money can come in quickly from non-traditional sources.
Maybe, just maybe, the public likes gridlock.


(edited by redsoxnation on 20.1.10 0702)
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.46
The real problem is Mass citizens don't want the rest of America to have the health care they have. Its time for the Dems to say go ahead and filibuster, so the GOP can be seen wasting their time while people die in hospital. I hope he enjoys the seat, because this will be short lived.
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
I don't know that the people had much of a choice as what little I learned of both candidates made them both seem crappy.

I just hope health care reform can get passed anyway. In reading, it takes at least 10 days for results to be sent to the state to get certified, then they send on to the Senate before he can be seated. Any chance they can get the compromise bill through before then?
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.47
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    I don't know that the people had much of a choice as what little I learned of both candidates made them both seem crappy.

    I just hope health care reform can get passed anyway. In reading, it takes at least 10 days for results to be sent to the state to get certified, then they send on to the Senate before he can be seated. Any chance they can get the compromise bill through before then?


NO. That just reinforces the public's feelings about this. Let the gridlock begin. Oh and I would openly debate all the Rep's ideas and get the CBO in on it.

Anyone remember what happened when Newt threatened to shut down the government with SLick Willie? Remember who won?



Perception is reality
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 776 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.50
    Originally posted by wmatistic

    I just hope health care reform can get passed anyway. In reading, it takes at least 10 days for results to be sent to the state to get certified, then they send on to the Senate before he can be seated. Any chance they can get the compromise bill through before then?


Short answer, yes and no.

Longer answer. It depends on how they approach it. With the election being over, there are only 99 senators since Kirk isn't a senator anymore and Brown hasn't been seated. However, they still need 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster and the Democrats don't have that anymore so most Senate options are gone.

That leaves the House as the only viable option. Fortunately (I say fortunately since I think the health care reform as presented is an abomination but I'm trying to not interject my feelings about that into my answer ), the only House option that doesn't involve the Senate having to vote again is the House passing the Senate bill exactly as written and I don't think that they have the votes to do that after the election.

Plus, I think most of the Democratic House members in contestable districts realize that trying to ram the bill through now is going to spell their doom in the fall. I mean, when CNN (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) says things like
    Originally posted by CNN
    Liberal New York Democrat Anthony Weiner predicted the Senate bill wouldn't have the votes to pass the House.

    Weiner ridiculed House Democratic leaders for holding a meeting to brief House Democrats on negotiations with the White House on a health care bill, telling reporters: "They're talking as if, 'what our deal is, what our negotiators are at the White House.' Yeah, and then the last line is, 'Pigs fly out of my ass' ... It's just, we've got to recognize we are in an entirely different scenario.


I tend to think that Health Care reform as currently presented is dead. But, YMMV.

Tim




Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 62 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
Bash summed it up pretty well.

At this point the most likely approach will be to strip out most of the spending-based parts of the bill, and leave in only the provisions that have broad-based public support. I would expect you'll see something passed early this year to end pre-existing condition clauses, cut back on recission, and deal with the donut hole in Medicare Part D. All of these will likely pull a few moderate GOP Senators and have sufficient House support. And if they don't, at least they're much better fields for the Democrats to wage a protracted war on. If the GOP takes this election as a sign they should say no to everything, it could backfire on them.



2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.29


Wow, he is a United States Senator. http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo

I don't care what has to happen, I would just like to be able to afford (and not be rejected because I actually NEED to use it) some health care coverage.

(edited by Zeruel on 20.1.10 1250)


-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 50 days
Last activity: 50 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.20
So voters put the Democrats in power, and they waste their time and accomplish nothing while stupid political bickering rules the day. What a shock. Wait, let me guess: Next we turn to the Republicans and debate the use of the military abroad and the future of abortion? I don't think the country has ever gone down this road before.

Just for fun, from shortly before election day 2008:

    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Probably for the Republican party the best outcome is to get torched and lose everything big. If the Dems do what Dems normally do when in power and the Republicans go through the bloodbath they must to regain their center, in four years things will be much different
    TWO. Two years.

    Biden's already promised it will only take one for the polls to sink the Obama presidency. ;-) That should be just long enough for the next crop of candidates to sweep in, 1994-style. WHO WILL BE NEWT 2010?


    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    The problem with 2 years is that the 60 mark, or even a high 50's mark, would take a few elections for Republicans to whittle the margin down back to 50-50. It would probably take 4-6 years for the Republicans to wrest away control of the Senate in a best case scenario just due to the way Democrats gained seats, with the majority of the gains being in seats that would be up for grabs in 2012 and 2014, not 2010.


    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

    For the Republicans to rebound from what looks like is going to be a bad election day for them, they need to take the party back from the evangelicals and corporate thugs that currently rule the party (which isn't to say the Democrats don't have the same problems). If Obama does become president and the Dems to have a big majority in Congress, the Republicans need to counter with something other than the anti-intellectualism and corruption embodied by Sarah Palin.

    If they stick to that course - and it's the course they've been going further and further down for as long as I've been alert enough to pay attention, which is roughly a decade - then the party is going to continue to lose influence.

    I know about a dozen people who are voting for Obama and citing "he's an intellectual" as their primary reason. When the alternative is a party full of people professing that the world is 6,000 years old, that homosexuality is unnatural and other things of that ilk, despite overwhelming evidence to contradict it, there's not much of a decision for these people to make.


    Originally posted by MoeGates
    You have to remember 1994 was also due to a huge lack of turnout on the Democrats part due to a lot of disillusionment with Clinton, who managed to implement pretty much none of what he'd promised in terms of liberal priorities. For liberals "don't ask, don't tell" kind of summed up the first couple years, and we were just not exited about the guy like we were in 1992 and stayed away.

    The Republicans have to learn they can't be a competitive party if their strategy is to get 55% of the population to vote for them based on their hatred and fear for the other 45% - especially if the 45% is growing, the 55% is shrinking, and the 55% actually doesn't really hate and fear the 45% that much.


    Originally posted by Big Bad


    Given that the Dems are expected to actually win more Senate seats in 2010, I don't think they're losing control anytime soon. God help the Republicans if they actually nominate Palin in 2012....she would put up Mondale-esque numbers.


    Originally posted by CRZ

      Because, if Obama does get steer us out of Iraqi and the economic crisis without too much damage what else with the Republicans run on in two years.

    That would be great if that happened. You'll excuse my cynicism? I don't think ANY president could manage to do both of those things.

      Plus, I do think people will be more patient with Obama then Clinton in 1994 and if Palin is the best Republicans throw at him in 2012 if she survives the GOP bloodbath that may take place if McCain loses, good luck with that.
    There are a lot of people underestimating Sarah Palin - some of them even post here - but I don't think we need to automatically pencil her into the nomination for 2012 just yet. I feel uneasy enough just talking about 2009-10.


What on earth have Obama and the Democrats in Congress done to motivate people to vote for them? Is there anyone who feels like their faith in the Democrats from 2008 has paid off or sees any signs that it will pay off in the near future?

Here is a column from Nat Hentoff from the Village Voice that I found to be pretty thought-provoking, comparing the (short) presidency of Barack Obama with George W. Bush's term. If you would like to know the conclusion in advance, I'll say this: The Voice featured this column on its front page this week, with the headline "George W. Obama."

I think I've have had something of a philosophical epiphany in the past two weeks. Sometime if I'm feeling motivated I'd like to write something detailing it, but the very short version is I no longer have any faith in the federal government to be effective with a constituency of 350 million people, and thus I think more power has to rest with the state governments. Democracy just can't work with a pool of that many people. It makes awful presidencies and meaningless power shifts like what we've seen for the past 20 years inevitable. No, it's worse than inevitable ... it's inevitable but also actively encourages people to believe it's NOT inevitable. Unfortunately, coming to this realization doesn't really create any more options as a voter than I had before.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 202 days
Last activity: 39 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.71
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I think I've have had something of a philosophical epiphany in the past two weeks. Sometime if I'm feeling motivated I'd like to write something detailing it, but the very short version is I no longer have any faith in the federal government to be effective with a constituency of 350 million people, and thus I think more power has to rest with the state governments. Democracy just can't work with a pool of that many people. It makes awful presidencies and meaningless power shifts like what we've seen for the past 20 years inevitable. No, it's worse than inevitable ... it's inevitable but also actively encourages people to believe it's NOT inevitable. Unfortunately, coming to this realization doesn't really create any more options as a voter than I had before.


TheBucsFan, is that you? :-)

I think you hit the nail right on the head. To try & legislate to a pool of people as large and diverse as the US population, from a single/centralized location, is a fools errand. The needs of those in rural Iowa are not the same as those in Urban Chicago & the Federal government can never hope to properly represent both with the same set of rules and directives.

The Founding Fathers had this very factor in mind when they set us up as a representative republic. The states are much better suited to handle the specific needs of their unique locale and populations, & we need to get back to that model as a country & government.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 38 min.
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan


    I think I've have had something of a philosophical epiphany in the past two weeks. Sometime if I'm feeling motivated I'd like to write something detailing it, but the very short version is I no longer have any faith in the federal government to be effective with a constituency of 350 million people, and thus I think more power has to rest with the state governments. Democracy just can't work with a pool of that many people. It makes awful presidencies and meaningless power shifts like what we've seen for the past 20 years inevitable. No, it's worse than inevitable ... it's inevitable but also actively encourages people to believe it's NOT inevitable. Unfortunately, coming to this realization doesn't really create any more options as a voter than I had before.


I'm not sure I'm convinced. Where do we see the states doing anything better? Consider that we got to be about two Senators (or, perhaps, one really good Presidential speech, one effective bit of political dealmaking, or one adjustment to the Senate rules) away from a really meaningful health care reform package. Now, I know that even under the best-case scenario the reform would only do so much...but how many states have done better? A couple, perhaps?

There are certainly big obstacles to effective democracy out there, with the biggest probably being the outsize effect of corporations and their money (which makes the SCOTUS decision in the other thread so scary). I just don't see reason to believe that more localized power solves those problems.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 42 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.98
I really liked revisiting this thread because you made me look like a genius who people should be listening to. ;-)

Also, kudos for Karlos the Jackal who accurately predicted Sarah Palin's Fox News gig.

Also also, good to see that even though lotjx has now been sulking for at least 15 months....he or she still drops by!



Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.87
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Brock Lesner calls Canadian health care "Third World"
Next thread: Supreme Court sticks up for those poor, neglected corporations
Previous thread: Air America R.I.P.
(179 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Hell, the GOP might want to make Rudy the VP in case Cheney's health gets worse. VP is pretty much a fundraising, hand-shaking position anyway. Hilary running would be a huge mistake, since, quite frankly, she would lose in a major way.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Scott Brown projected WINNER in Senate race!Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.134 seconds.