OMG!! Mass. state Sen. Scott Brown wins special election to U.S. Senate
 

News Alert
09:19 PM EST Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Mass. state Sen. Scott Brown wins special election to U.S. Senate

Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, winning a special election over two opponents, the Associated Press projected. Brown -- the first Republican senator from the Bay State in 31 years -- will give the GOP 41 seats in the Senate, enhancing the party's ability to demand changes in legislation.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com - http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/92KH5M/76YJR/HYU59A/GF82LI/64IEN/50/t

The question now is whether that man of the people, Massachusetts Senior Senator John “Live Shot” Kerry will stand up on the floor of the US Senate and demand Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown be sworn in and seated tomorrow one day after winning this special election, exactly like the Lion of the Senate Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was in 1962 after winning a special election to fill the seat formerly held by his brother President John F. Kennedy?

This isn't 1962, and Mass election laws have changed a few times since then.
A much better example to follow would be the recent senate election in Minnesota.

"This isn't 1962, and Mass election laws have changed a few times since then."

On what specific changes have you based your analysis? What where they then and what are they now, and what is the difference? How have the specific requirements for certification of a special election winner changed?

Shouldn't Massachusetts follow Massachusetts law?

"A much better example to follow would be the recent senate election in Minnesota."

How is Minnesota a "much better" example? In what way is it much better?

What, you don't think the Rr machine, et.al., did the right and smart thing by dragging its heels at every turn in the seating of Al Franken? Surely you don't want that good example of Senatorial power struggling to be forgotten so quickly, wasted, essentially?

If this special election was as close as the Minnesota race that circumstance would be analogous, but in fact it is not, over 100,000 votes separate the winner from the loser.

My personal hope would be that the democrats continue to use everything they can to desperately cling to their power; it is precisely that attitude which turned the stomachs of so many independents in this race. The more they act that way the further independents across the country will turn away from them, I welcome that because it works in my favor.

My question was clearly and specifically regarding John Kerry’s character or lack thereof!

Kerry is one $h!tless sum*****. Not sure what he'll do. And you're right, the Minnesota election was close. The last 2 months were footdragging however.

Enlighten us as to HOW MANY votes difference it would take in the above mentioned scenario to make it analogous then. Somewhere between 1 and 100,000 perhaps?



My personal hope would be that the republicans continue to use everything they can to desperately obstruct everything they encounter, as the G-NO-P, to bitterly divide the country with hyper-partisanship; it is precisely that attitude which turned the stomachs of so many progressives in this country. The more they act that way and the further they champion lunatics such as Sarah Palin and Hate radio screamers, the independents and progressives across the country will turn away from them, I welcome that because it works in my favor.



That is about as relevant as Larry Craig's sexual proclivities, isn't it?

I'm just glad Mass. voters were able to "shake the tree" a bit; I don't think things are going well in this country (duh), and the politicians (both R and D) should always have a fear of the people in their hearts.

Thank you, Massachusetts!

First the Jets and now this. WTF is going on??? :confused:;)

The Mayans were wrong and the end of the world is in 2010 not 2012!:D

Circular firing squad.
 

Lanny's no favorite of mine, but he is spot on about the underlying cause of this debacle. So, a more centrist democrat blames the far left McGovernesque and Deanesque types for hijacking the party. All the people on MSNBC this morning were pretty much saying the same thing. So, will there be a bloody civil war? Sen. Jim Webb said to slow down last night (centrist Dem). Sen. Evan Bayh said today slow down (centrist Dem.)

14% of the registered voters in Mass are republicans. 52% of voters voted for Brown. The other 40% came from independents and, dare I say it, disaffected democrats.

Nora O'Donnell (she's hot!;)) pointed out that an overlooked message of Brown's and an important issue of the voters was the war on terrorism. Brown's biggest applause last night was when he remarked about spending on fighting terrorists rather than hiring lawyers to defend them. Coakley made huge gaffs, sure. No more Taliban in Astan? The cut deep. Standing outside Fenway Park shaking hands in the cold? Cut deeper. She clearly was not ready for prime time. .
I read an op-ed piece yesterday somewhere that said that Americans don't want to be governed from the left. Lanny Davis, a Clinton apologista if there ever was one, is saying the same thing.

For all you progressives out there, it appears that you are "out of sync with the mainstream", to used an old progressive favorite saying (if you ever were the "mainstream"). Morning Joe was even harshly critical of Obama and Holder (by name) of bringing KSM to Manhattan as an example of being out of step with popular opinion. Pelosi is hugely unpopular. Reid is hugely unpopular. How much longer does Obama let these dumbells determine his legacy? I am still undecided if the president is likeable yet incompetent and being manipulated by Raum or is truly a wolf in sheeps clothing.

The Democrats have lost the independent voters in 12 months. A truly remarkable acheivement, boys and girls.

BTW, how ironic that this occurred on the anniversary of his inauguration! (Yesterday was also the day Republican Chris Christie was inaugurated as NJ's governor, in case you missed it out there on the left wing.;))


Blame the Left for Massachusetts
Democrats should be willing to seek common-ground reforms.Article
By LANNY J. DAVIS

Liberal Democrats might attempt to spin the shocking victory of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts by claiming that the loss was a result of a poor campaign by Martha Coakley. Would that it were so. This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message—and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better.

It's the substance, stupid!

According to polls, fears about the Democrats' health-care proposal played a prominent role in Mr. Brown's victory yesterday. In the last several months, the minority congressional Republicans have dominated the message on health care—and stamped on the Democratic Party the perception that we stand for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity when it comes to Medicare.

How is that possible? The Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?

Then there were the two "deals" that put congressional Democrats in a worse light than the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere"—as impossible as that might have seemed—as an emblem of the special interest politics Barack Obama ran against. We Democrats had to explain to Massachusetts voters and other Americans why non-Nebraskans and nonunion members have to pay more taxes, while Nebraskans and union members get to pay less. Those two deals seem to have alienated most people across the political spectrum. That's not easy.

Somehow, in the last 12 months, we allowed the party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to morph into the party of George McGovern (or more accurately, his most ardent supporters) and Howard Dean, who called for the defeat of the Democratic health-care bill if it had neither a public option or Medicare buy-in. (He couldn't possibly have been speaking for the 31 million uninsured people in taking that all-or-nothing position.)

In 1996, Mr. Clinton was the first Democrat to win re-election since FDR—expanding the electoral map once again into western, southern, and sunbelt states. He did so by creating a new ideological hybrid for a still-progressive Democratic Party: balanced-budget fiscal conservatism, cultural moderation, and liberal social programs administered by a "lean and mean government." This New Democrat combination appealed to Ross Perot independents concerned about deficits, and also to traditional Republican suburbanites who were culturally moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights but opposed to high taxes and wasteful, big-government bureaucracy.

Then, in 2008, Barack Obama added something extra: a commitment to a "new politics" that transcended the "red" versus "blue" partisan divide. He explained this concept clearly in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech and during his 2008 presidential campaign. It meant compromise, consensus and bipartisanship, even if that meant only incremental change. The purists on the left of the Democratic Party who demanded the "public option" or no bill at all apparently forgot that candidate Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option; nor did it include a government mandate for everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a significant tax approximating the cost of that insurance—the "pay or play provision" in both the Senate and House bills.

Bottom line: We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions.

That's what Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters were telling national Democrats yesterday. The question isn't just, will we listen? The question is, will we stop listening to the strident, purist base of our party who seem to prefer defeat to winning elections and no change at all if they don't get all the change they want.
Stay tuned.

Mr. Davis, a Washington, D.C., attorney and a weekly columnist for "The Hill" newspaper, was special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996-98. He is the author of "Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics Is Destroying America" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

SWEET their's never any hyper-partisanship in your TONE -- jjz

It would be great if this drove the President toward the middle. Rather than have a "take it or leave it" approach to Health Care, as authored by Pelosi/Reid, maybe something a little smaller, with actual input from the other party. It might make for some meaningful reform, as opposed to wholesale revamping, of health care.

I would prefer this move toward the middle to continuing the same failed strategy, even if that would cause more upheaval in November.

Open the doors to the closed door meetings as was promised. Maybe not as much special favors will get done, but maybe the American people will benefit.

If they scrap the total package they have now - open the doors he said he was doing and ran on and let those who want to know and see SEE

the people have spoken now 3 times and on the day 1 year ago he got in office, and now S Brown takes away his complete control on one side of the goverment

If the left dont see that and it never happened before like this THAN they the left will be a thing of the past in our goverment, I would HATE to see that happen, we need both sides of any issue even the wrong side they have, is fun to banter just like what goes on here, SAY GOOD BY OBAMMACARE - jz