[Hoot Gibson]

The Democrats' circular firing squad is in place and ready to open fire! :letsparty

Brown Wins Massachusetts Senate Seat, Potentially Upending Obama Agenda

By GREG HITT and PETER WALLSTEN

BOSTON -- A little-known Republican upended the balance of power in Washington by winning a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, a result that imperils President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities and augurs trouble for his party in this year's elections.

With 75% of the vote counted, Republican Scott Brown was leading his opponent, Massachusetts' Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 52.7% to 46.3%, according to the Associated Press, which declared Mr. Brown the winner.

The News Hub takes a look at a special election that threatens to tip the Senate's balance of power and undermine President Barack Obama's policy agenda. MarketWatch's Robert Powell reports from Massachusetts with more.
The Brown victory forces the White House and Congressional leaders into a mad scramble to decide how—or whether—to salvage their long-sought health-care overhaul. Rushing the bill after losing Massachusetts carries political risks. So does allowing it to collapse....

[thecavemaster]

The Democrats' circular firing squad is in place and ready to open fire! :letsparty

Again, this is politics as usual. It is a BIG deal to lose the seat in MA, no doubt about it. It does mean hard choices as to the healthcare reform bill, no doubt about it. It may even mean scrapping it, or starting from scratch as the only options. That's the way the political ball bounces. Whether I agree with him or not, Mr. Brown ran a smart campaign and pulled the upset. However, "firing squad" and "open fire" ... I doubt it... meetings and heated discussions, yes... panic and throwing people overboard, I doubt it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Again, this is politics as usual. It is a BIG deal to lose the seat in MA, no doubt about it. It does mean hard choices as to the healthcare reform bill, no doubt about it. It may even mean scrapping it, or starting from scratch as the only options. That's the way the political ball bounces. Whether I agree with him or not, Mr. Brown ran a smart campaign and pulled the upset. However, "firing squad" and "open fire" ... I doubt it... meetings and heated discussions, yes... panic and throwing people overboard, I doubt it.

This is anything but politics as usual. A Republican has not held a US Senate seat in the Bay State since 1953 and Brown won going away. Obama has sparked life back into the Republican Party.

[Hoot Gibson]

This is anything but politics as usual. A Republican has not held a US Senate seat in the Bay State since 1953 and Brown won going away. Obama has sparked life back into the Republican Party.

The White House and the Coakley campaign started pointing fingers before the polls closed today. Evan Bayh and even Anthony Weiner took some shots at Obama when it became obvious that Coakley would fare poorly.

[thecavemaster]

This is anything but politics as usual. A Republican has not held a US Senate seat in the Bay State since 1953 and Brown won going away. Obama has sparked life back into the Republican Party.

As Bush II, and before him Gingrich, etc. etc. breathed life into the Democratic base. It is a BIG deal, no doubt about it. But I can't believe you would "blind eye" the past so as to skew the present.

[Hoot Gibson]

As Bush II, and before him Gingrich, etc. etc. breathed life into the Democratic base. It is a BIG deal, no doubt about it. But I can't believe you would "blind eye" the past so as to skew the present.

No American president in my lifetime has squandered more political capital such a short period of time than Obama. Not even Jimmy Carter. The few moderate Congressional Democrats who may still have a chance to be reelected will soon be giving the Obama administration its legislative marching orders or they will openly rebel. I would not be surprised to see people like Clinton or Bayh resign soon to start their 2012 campaigns.

[Hoot Gibson]

The moderate Democrats are already beginning to flex their muscles. :Clap:

Starting tomorrow, the Obama agenda will either morph into a much, much different agenda than yesterday or he will enter lame duckdom in record time. Obama may even have to cut back on his partying and vacations and actually propose legislation that will not destroy his own party (and country).

Health Care Comes To Screeching Halt - Sen. Webb: No HCR Votes Until Brown Seated

Less than 15 minutes after the race was called for Republican Scott Brown, the first of what could be many conservative Democrats asks for leadership to put the brakes on health care reform.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) congratulated Brown on his win and delivered a zinger:

Link

[ImagineThat!]

That reading on the richter scale near Arlington National Cemetary was Ted Kennedy spinning in his grave.....

[Joe Friday]

“Uh-oh…I’m getting happy feet!” :letsparty

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit suggested Senator Brown (Doesn’t that sound great?) gives the Republican response to B. Hussein Obama’s State of the Union speech next week IN HIS TRUCK! :ilikeit: Mr. Brown goes to Washington and ‘the shot heard round the world.’ Yee-haw! irateSho irateSho

[Hoot Gibson]

I did not expect this.

Barney Frank Deals Potential Death Blow to Obamacare
The healthcare bills are dead unless Republicans get weak kneed between now and November. Hopefully, the Brown win will discourage Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, McCain, and the other RHINOS in the US Senate from cutting a deal with Obama.

[Joe Friday]

I did not expect this.

Barney Frank Deals Potential Death Blow to Obamacare
The healthcare bills are dead unless Republicans get weak kneed between now and November. Hopefully, the Brown win will discourage Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, McCain, and the other RHINOS in the US Senate from cutting a deal with Obama.

Was poor old Rach :broom: crying as she read the statement from Barmey? The next few days are going to be such fun ! :party2:

[Beetle01]

Yesterday when I got home I was watching some Ed Schulz, wanting to get a view from liberals on how they felt about this race. BTW if anyone ever compares MSNBC and FOX in terms of fairness and agenda again, they need smacked in the mouth, FOX atleast tries to pretend they dont back a certain party or candidate when doing election coverage. He was openly referring to the voters and the race as "WE". He was in complete melt down mode it was awesome. He even recommended voter fraud to win.


I wouldnt be surprised to start seeing a lot of high profile dems start bailing on the Obama administration, its obvious a large majority of the country is not happy with the direction he is taking us.

[notamoocher]

Yesterday when I got home I was watching some Ed Schulz, wanting to get a view from liberals on how they felt about this race. BTW if anyone ever compares MSNBC and FOX in terms of fairness and agenda again, they need smacked in the mouth, FOX atleast tries to pretend they dont back a certain party or candidate when doing election coverage. He was openly referring to the voters and the race as "WE". He was in complete melt down mode it was awesome. He even recommended voter fraud to win.


I wouldnt be surprised to start seeing a lot of high profile dems start bailing on the Obama administration, its obvious a large majority of the country is not happy with the direction he is taking us.

I did say on here that by hiring Palin Fox may be going to far and made reference to MSNBC. Well I watched MSNBC last night. Oberman called Senator Brown every name he could think of and say on TV and of course racist was the main theme of his rant. I also heard Ed Schulz call all republicans bas---s. So I must agree MSNBC is the worst person of the day.

[All Tell]

I watched MSNBC for the first (and last) time last night. They couldn't throw Coakley under the bus fast enough. Maddow even blamed the loss on sexism. Had Limbaugh said the things about a Democtatic Senator that Olberman said about Brown it would have been front page news nationwide. They they proceded to try to come up with ways that Obamunism can be pushed through before Brown is seated. They just don't get it and I hope they continue not to get it. Reid goes next.

[Youngerthandirt]

Those in the middle....the independent voters moved slightly to the left and elected the current administration now the flow is slightly right of the middle in their voting stance and the Republican Party needs to make sure they don't run them off again.

I don't think this election is or was against health care as much as it was showing the Obama camp that they are to far left and need to make a move to the middle if they plan to keep their advantage. This administration isn't a representation of the working class, but more of a representation of the Al Gore agenda, the tree huggers and the ultra liberals.

Being a conservative I would enjoy a conservative President, but I'm not a far right-winger so I can manage under a middle of the road administration. I like trees, but I don't think MTR is the root of all evil. I think we need to help Americans in need, I just don't think we need to turn our country into a Welfare State. I think everyone deserves health care, but I think you need to start with the current insurance companies that are selling health care coverage and clean up their houses first. I believe we need to protect the very young and the elderly, but I think we need to provide jobs and training for those that can but won't work. Make them earn their keep........

Good Luck Senator Brown......

[Captain Backdoor]

FINALLY the GOP is mounting its comeback!!

[nky]

I watched MSNBC for the first (and last) time last night. They couldn't throw Coakley under the bus fast enough. Maddow even blamed the loss on sexism. Had Limbaugh said the things about a Democtatic Senator that Olberman said about Brown it would have been front page news nationwide. They they proceded to try to come up with ways that Obamunism can be pushed through before Brown is seated. They just don't get it and I hope they continue not to get it. Reid goes next.

Maddow even blame President Bush at one point

[Beetle01]

The only thing is I hate the GOP almost as much as I hate democrats.

[Old School]

For the first time, I can honestly say I'm proud of the people in Massachusetts.

For some reason this tune has been stuck in my head all day.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1wOK9yGUYM"]YouTube- James Brown - I Feel Good[/ame]

[Old School]

I watched MSNBC for the first (and last) time last night. They couldn't throw Coakley under the bus fast enough. Maddow even blamed the loss on sexism. Had Limbaugh said the things about a Democtatic Senator that Olberman said about Brown it would have been front page news nationwide. They they proceded to try to come up with ways that Obamunism can be pushed through before Brown is seated. They just don't get it and I hope they continue not to get it. Reid goes next.

I couldn't keep from watching MSNBC last night esp. Olberman, man was he ever upset. :biggrin: He probably had his highest ratings ever last night.

That reading on the richter scale near Arlington National Cemetary was Ted Kennedy spinning in his grave.....

I didn't think about that, you could be right.

I did not expect this.

Barney Frank Deals Potential Death Blow to Obamacare
The healthcare bills are dead unless Republicans get weak kneed between now and November. Hopefully, the Brown win will discourage Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, McCain, and the other RHINOS in the US Senate from cutting a deal with Obama.

I still don't trust Frank, Pelosi or their crews.

I did say on here that by hiring Palin Fox may be going to far and made reference to MSNBC. Well I watched MSNBC last night. Oberman called Senator Brown every name he could think of and say on TV and of course racist was the main theme of his rant. I also heard Ed Schulz call all republicans bas---s. So I must agree MSNBC is the worst person of the day.

Ed Schulz made the comment that he would cheat to help Coakley win.

Maddow even blame President Bush at one point

She had Howard Dean on and Dean also blamed Bush. They will be blaming Bush or global warming for everything for the next 3 years.

[Squid]

A Republican has not held a US Senate seat in the Bay State since 1953 ...

Swing and a miss.

Edward Brooke was a Republican that represented Massachusetts in the US Senate from 1967 to 1978 (actually left office in early January of 1979, to be technically correct).

[TheRealVille]

Swing and a miss.

Edward Brooke was a Republican that represented Massachusetts in the US Senate from 1967 to 1978 (actually left office in early January of 1979, to be technically correct).

According to Wiki, this is true. I wonder why all the news services are saying it's been 50 years since a Republican has held the seat? I have heard them say this all day on the news.

[Squid]

According to Wiki, this is true. I wonder why all the news services are saying it's been 50 years since a Republican has held the seat? I have heard them say this all day on the news.

Well, whoever started that meme missed it by a quarter of a century. That's a pretty bad miss, by any standard. What they were really trying to say is that THAT particular seat had not been held by a Republican for 50 years (Henry Cabot Lodge). Big difference, if facts are important.

At this point, I've lost pretty much all respect for traditional "news" outlets. The days when they researched stories before the ran with them are long gone.

At this time, someone reports something as a fact, and everyone else simply runs with it, without bothering to fact check anything. The people that earned their living as journalists 50 years ago would shake their heads at what passes for reporting today. The idea of not printing (or reporting) something until it has been confirmed by a second source is passe. The same is true for keeping opinion separated from factual reporting.

Sad days, indeed.

The worst part is, a lot of younger people will never know the difference between true reporting, and the injection of opinion into a story, since they have no background to compare and contrast the difference.

That would actually be a very good class for todays high schools to teach.

[Hoot Gibson]

Swing and a miss.

Edward Brooke was a Republican that represented Massachusetts in the US Senate from 1967 to 1978 (actually left office in early January of 1979, to be technically correct).

I stand corrected. I should have said that it is the first time since 1953 that somebody other than a Kennedy or one of their allies have held the seat. Brown even carried Barney Frank's district.

[Squid]

For the majority of us, during our lifetimes, Ted Kennedy has filled the seat, so we have a somewhat limited view of the situation.

Until Ted Kennedy took it over (in 1962) that particular Senate seat has really been controlled by a moderate for a long time. Henry Cabot Lodge (who was a true statesman - he actually resigned his Senate seat to fight his second tour of duty in WWII) was a moderate Republican, and he was succeeded by John F. Kennedy (a conservative Democrat). Historically speaking, the seat has been a bastion of moderate legislators, right up to Ted Kennedy.

[Hoot Gibson]

For the majority of us, during our lifetimes, Ted Kennedy has filled the seat, so we have a somewhat limited view of the situation.

Until Ted Kennedy took it over (in 1962) that particular Senate seat has really been controlled by a moderate for a long time. Henry Cabot Lodge (who was a true statesman - he actually resigned his Senate seat to fight his second tour of duty in WWII) was a moderate Republican, and he was succeeded by John F. Kennedy (a conservative Democrat). Historically speaking, the seat has been a bastion of moderate legislators, right up to Ted Kennedy.

Swing and a miss.

JFK was a proud liberal Democrat. Of course, if JFK lived in today's America and held similar political beliefs he would probably be uncomfortable in the Democratic Party and he undoubtedly would have the kooks at the Daily Kos and Media Matters trying to purge him from the party ranks. Most of today's liberals would not have been comfortable in the Democratic Party of the early 60s either but for different reasons.

[Squid]

Swing and a miss.

JFK was a proud liberal Democrat. Of course, if JFK lived in today's America and held similar political beliefs he would probably be uncomfortable in the Democratic Party and he undoubtedly would have the kooks at the Daily Kos and Media Matters trying to purge him from the party ranks. Most of today's liberals would not have been comfortable in the Democratic Party of the early 60s either but for different reasons.

In another thread, you accused me of "revisionist history".

Either you have no grasp of history, or you are simply an ideologue that doesn't bother with facts.

Kennedy was the first Catholic President, but he was no liberal. Democrat, yes - liberal, no.

Kennedy was a fiscal conservative (and was actually very similar to Ronald Reagan in many respects on both the need and the way to grow the economy). He was a strong friend to the military/industrial complex (which Eisenhower had warned us about), and he was not shy about using the CIA to support US oil interests in the middle east. JFK was the single biggest proponent of the establishment and funding of Special Forces units (Green Berets), and is credited with saving them from being scrapped and their expansion.

Mind you, I'm not saying he was a die-hard right winger. He did believe in (and promote) civil rights, reformed immigration policies, and he fought with Herbert Hoover over the abuse of Hoovers power against his enemies (real and perceived). He was definitely a Democrat, but he was also definitely not a liberal. Not in the terms of that day and age, nor in today's.

On the whole, political historians classify Kennedy as a slightly conservative Democrat.

I realize that, in some people's minds, all Democrats are (by default) liberals, but that is simply a conflation of the two terms. There are liberal leaning Republicans, and conservative leaning Democrats. Those two groups make up what most people would call the moderates of the political spectrum. JFK was clearly in that group.

[Hoot Gibson]

In another thread, you accused me of "revisionist history".

Either you have no grasp of history, or you are simply an ideologue that doesn't bother with facts.

Kennedy was the first Catholic President, but he was no liberal. Democrat, yes - liberal, no.

Kennedy was a fiscal conservative (and was actually very similar to Ronald Reagan in many respects on both the need and the way to grow the economy). He was a strong friend to the military/industrial complex (which Eisenhower had warned us about), and he was not shy about using the CIA to support US oil interests in the middle east. JFK was the single biggest proponent of the establishment and funding of Special Forces units (Green Berets), and is credited with saving them from being scrapped and their expansion.

Mind you, I'm not saying he was a die-hard right winger. He did believe in (and promote) civil rights, reformed immigration policies, and he fought with Herbert Hoover over the abuse of Hoovers power against his enemies (real and perceived). He was definitely a Democrat, but he was also definitely not a liberal. Not in the terms of that day and age, nor in today's.

On the whole, political historians classify Kennedy as a slightly conservative Democrat.

I realize that, in some people's minds, all Democrats are (by default) liberals, but that is simply a conflation of the two terms. There are liberal leaning Republicans, and conservative leaning Democrats. Those two groups make up what most people would call the moderates of the political spectrum. JFK was clearly in that group.

In Kennedy's own words. Who should we believe, you or JFK himself? You cannot go back in time and apply modern labels to historical figures. People must be judged within the context of the times in which they lived. Like I said, a swing and a miss - strike two, but who is counting?

Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960

Dr. Niebuhr, Professor Hayes, Governor Stevenson, Mr. Meany, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I accept your nomination, and I am proud of it. [Applause.] I am proud to be the only candidate in 1960 with the nomination of two political parties, although I'm not certain how many tickets are now headed in how many States by Senator Goldwater. [Laughter.]
We had an interesting convention at Los Angeles, and we ended with a strong Democratic platform which we called the rights of man. The Republican platform has also been presented. I do not know its title, but it has been referred to as the power of positive thinking. [Laughter and applause.] I do not regard the title of liberal as an honorary degree; I regard it as a license to preach the gospel of liberalism across this country. [Applause.] But I think you know why this title could be conferred on my candidacy. Just before you met, a weekly news magazine with wide circulation, featured a section entitled, "Kennedy's Liberal Promises," and described me, and I quote, "as the farthest-out liberal Democrat around," unquote. While I am not certain of the "beatnik" definition of "farthest-out," I am certain that this was not intended as a compliment. [Laughter.] And last week, as further proof of my credentials, a noted American clergyman was quoted as saying that our society may survive in the event of my election, but it certainly won't be what it was. I would like to think he was complimenting me, but I'm not sure he was. [Laughter and applause.] But a more serious challenge to my credentials, this time as a Democrat, was issued in Dallas, Tex. In his address to a large gathering of Texas Republicans, and there are no purer breed anyplace in the United States [laughter], Mr. Nixon complained that what he called the party of Schlesinger, Galbraith, and Bowles was not the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Wilson. I do not agree, but I have no intention of issuing a similar challenge to my opponent's credentials; for I know full well that the party of Nixon, Dirksen, and Goldwater is the party of Hoover, Harding, Coolidge, McKinley, and the rest. [Applause.] (emphasis added)

Kennedy used the word liberal more than 20 times in the above speech and proudly asserted that the label fit him. Yet you say that JFK was wrong and that he was actually a conservative Democrat and then have the audacity to accuse me of trying to revise history. You are a real hoot. :biggrin:

[Squid]

... You cannot go back in time and apply modern labels to historical figures. People must be judged within the context of the times in which they lived. Like I said, a swing and a miss - strike two, but who is counting?

You are the one that is trying to apply a modern label (i.e. the current understanding of what a liberal is) to JFK.

I made the comment that the seat in question has been (historically speaking) held by political moderates. JFK was a political moderate, by virture of having pursued and implemented mostly conservative policies. You made the assertion that Kennedy was a "liberal Democrat". Had you made the claim that Kennedy presented himself as a liberal, that would have been a different argument (the one you are now trying to switch to). You are now constructing a strawman argument, in an attempt to redirect the issue being debated. I don't care if Kennedy had proclaimed himself to be a Hassidic Jew. He was still a Catholic. Likewise, the number of times he used the term "liberal" in a speech does not change how he governed.

As a modern day analogy, George W. Bush ran as a conservative, but his fiscal policies were anything but conservative. If Bush used the term "conservative" fifty times in his acceptance speech, it wouldn't change the fact that he spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

That's "swing and a miss" on you - for strike two. Maybe it isn't too late for you to fake an injury and ask for a pinch hitter.

[Hoot Gibson]

You are the one that is trying to apply a modern label (i.e. the current understanding of what a liberal is) to JFK.

I made the comment that the seat in question has been (historically speaking) held by political moderates. JFK was a political moderate, by virture of having pursued and implemented mostly conservative policies. You made the assertion that Kennedy was a "liberal Democrat". Had you made the claim that Kennedy presented himself as a liberal, that would have been a different argument (the one you are now trying to switch to). You are now constructing a strawman argument, in an attempt to redirect the issue being debated. I don't care if Kennedy had proclaimed himself to be a Hassidic Jew. He was still a Catholic. Likewise, the number of times he used the term "liberal" in a speech does not change how he governed.

As a modern day analogy, George W. Bush ran as a conservative, but his fiscal policies were anything but conservative. If Bush used the term "conservative" fifty times in his acceptance speech, it wouldn't change the fact that he spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

That's "swing and a miss" on you - for strike two. Maybe it isn't too late for you to fake an injury and ask for a pinch hitter.

Kennedy was a liberal Democrat and you should simply man up and admit your mistake. You claimed that Kennedy was a conservative and Kennedy disagrees.

If you want to debate the point further, maybe you should hire a medium and take the issue up with JFK himself. It is impossible to win debates with somebody who refuses to admit mistakes.