Hell Freezes Over - Republican wins Teddy Ks seat

#1
In breaking news from Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1 A Republican, Scott Brown wins the seat that has been in the Kennedy family for over 50 years. Brown is a state senator, one of 5 republicans in the 40 member stahe senate. He is also a LtCol in the National Guard (prior enlisted, now JAG officer). This is a very embarrasing blow to Obama and the Democratic party. Obama was here over the weekend campaigning for Martha Coakley, the Dem candidate and current Attorney General of Mass. (elected office in Mass.).

Coakley had the endorsement on all labor unions but this morning I was talking with three firefighter friends. The fire union had endorsed Coakley but all three were voting for Brown. Coakly had run a very negative cambaign against Brown and made a bid issue over the fact that when the state passed a law requiring all hospital to provide abortions Brown got an amendment the exempted Catholic hospitals. Coakley tried to make it sound like Brown was anti womens rights but it did not fly in a heavily Catholic state where people knew the hospitals would close if the law was not amended. Coakley was also a major supporter of the US Govt paying for lawyers for taliban prisoners. That lost her votes too. Brown won 53% to 46% with a minor candidate getting 1%
 
#2
Teddy must have just been handed a Parka by the devil.....
 
#5
Teddy Kennedy dies...and then just when you think it couldn't possibly get any better...this happens...
 
#6
Cuddles said:
Teddy Kennedy dies...and then just when you think it couldn't possibly get any better...this happens...
Calsberg don't do Politics, but if they did... :twisted:
 
#7
Goldbricker said:
Teddy must have just been handed a Parka by the devil.....
Very considerate of Satan, wouldn't want Teddy to catch a cold.

If Ol' Ted is rolling in his grave, then he's probably doing around 3000 rpm by now. :D
 
#8
Obama said something about "Making Change Happen" ... I don't think he had this in mind!! :D

Perhaps some of this good fortune might rub off on the UK for the upcoming General Election?
 
#9
Not sure if this is a good thing for us. It means that the American leadership has been seriously weakened just as it seemed to be getting things under control. So I suppose that means we go back to chaos. and America's enemies abroad can expect an easier time as political point-scoring by the Republicans degrades her initiatives.

As for having a similar result here, we might if we have a hung parliament. By 'hung' I don't mean hang them, I mean no party with a clear majority.
 
#10
bullet_catcher said:
Not sure if this is a good thing for us. It means that the American leadership has been seriously weakened just as it seemed to be getting things under control. So I suppose that means we go back to chaos. and America's enemies abroad can expect an easier time as political point-scoring by the Republicans degrades her initiatives.

As for having a similar result here, we might if we have a hung parliament. By 'hung' I don't mean hang them, I mean no party with a clear majority.
My only amendments would be "... as political point-scoring by the Republicans/Democrats degrades her initiatives - as it has done for decades." :wink:

I do agree it slightly weakens Obama's position, but the US system has always experienced tension between the President and the 2 Houses; the entire setup is designed to achieve that, and avoid excessive power lying in any one corner. Any problems should be resolved by democratic debate, rather than by imposition. I think the Founding Fathers did a very good in designing the US system!
 
#11
Blue Sophist has a good point. Over here we like a bit of tension between branches of government. ALthough Mass. is overwhelmingly Democrat we often have elected Republican governors. People seem to think it will keep the Dems in the state legislature in line. We have not had a Republican senator since 1972 though.

Last night, instead of watching the election in front of my telly at home I went down to my local pub to watch it with others. Many were Dems who voted for Brown and not one person admitted voting for Coakley. The major issue to most was "Obamacare" health bill. Many would not mind some sort of health care plan for those who cannot afford it but most of us have very good health insurance and we don't want The Chosen One to feck up our health care. Obama's also had the problem of the head of Homeland Security saying "The system works" the day afer the undie bomber incident. When FEMA had problems after Katrina the news media were all over Bush like flies on sh1t but they are (quite correctly) understanding of the problems getting aid to Haiti.!! I will say however that Obama has some really good leadership people in FEMA.

Not to bore you with how it works now but those of us with full time jobs usually have a good health plan. Those on welfare/benefits etc already have good health care. It is a segment in between like the working mum who is a waitress or people who work part time who are without coverage. My brother in law is mentally ill, has not worked for 25 years and cannot work. He has Schitzophrenia. He is getting good health care and does not pay a dime for doctors, hospitals etc. All from Social Security.

This is a major blow to Obama. We could even see the Republicans regain the house next year. Nancy Pelosi would not longer be Speaker! No more USAF executive jets across the country every week. She would have to fly commercial with us riffraff!! That almost brings tears of joy to my eyes!!

I have a toothache this morning, I am on my way for a root canal. My back stiil hurts from slipping on ice last week but it is a wonderfull morning.
 
#12
God Bless America - thank you Yanks. Not only for turning around the situation in your country, but, also for helping save the Haiti disaster from getting worse.

I know we Brits can be real $hit$, at times, but, I am sure we here all want to say thanks!
 
#13
pimpernel said:
mnairb said:
Ha! How are the BBC going to explain that one away?
I am sure something along the line of radical right wing fundamentalists.
Even better - it was Ms Coakley's "lacklustre campaign" that was entirely to blame.

The Chosen One still has the Beeb's full support.
 
#14
Oh what a beautiful morning!! (Warbles show tunes and klicks heels.)



I believe this might be what the Anointed One calls a "teachable moment" No, No, Barry; it's the PEOPLE'S SEAT not Kennedy's seat or a Democratic seat. :lol: :1:
 
#15
Oh, and the most delicious irony of this is as follows:

Until 2004, there were no special elections in Massachusetts for Senate seats -- they were appointed by the governor.

However, in 2004, Chappaquiddick Kennedy told the Massachusetts state legislature that this was a Bad Thing, since Massachusetts senator John Kerry (who he?) was a dead shoo-in for president, and Mitt Romney would almost certainly appoint a Republican to his seat. Inconceivable! Thus, couched in an exceedingly thin veneer of a special election being "more democratic" (i.e. of greater benefit to the Democratic party at that precise moment in time), Chappaquiddick suggested that the state legislature might like to change the rules.

Of course, the Massachusetts legislature did exactly as it was told (it's not like the Kennedys thought they owned the state or anything... oh wait), and lo and behold the rules were changed.

Skip forward to 2009. Chappaquiddick is at death's door, and the DNC require 60 votes to push through unpopular legislation in the US Senate. But, once Chappaquiddick dies, there will be a certain number of weeks in which one of the Massachusetts seats is vacant and suddenly the 60 votes are gone.

So, Chappaquiddick instructs the Massachusetts state legislature to change the rules again to allow the governor (now a Democrat) to appoint a senator ad-interim so that they can pass this desperately unpopular legislation.

The hilarious thing is that if they had not changed the rules in the 1st place, a DNC machine place man would have been sitting in that seat and this would not have been an issue. However, because they kept changing the rules for the expediency of the moment to benefit their party and explicitly to attempt to keep Republicans out, a Republican ended up being elected.

Har-di-frickin'-ha!
 
#16
I think I can beat that one, dogface. How about this editorial from the Times (of London) yesterday. Just think, the Times used to be the newspaper of record, and it is now reduced to publishing these leftist counterfactuals:

Obama should have blamed Bush, not bankers
The Democrats’ disastrous defeat in Massachusetts will allow the President’s opponents to claim credit for the recovery
Anatole Kaletsky
22 Comments
Recommend? (3) <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article6995754.ece>
DIV#related-article-links P A { COLOR: #06c } DIV#related-article-links P A:visited { COLOR: #06c }
Why can the Left never win? Around the world, the election of Barack Obama inspired the hope of a new era of progressive politics, coming as it did after the spectacular failures of extreme conservatism under George W. Bush. But on Tuesday night, only one year after his inauguration, these hopes were suddenly destroyed.
The crushing defeat of the Democratic candidate to succeed the late Edward Kennedy as senator for Massachusetts, does not only wreck Mr Obama’s hopes of signing a health reform Bill this month, the main objective of his first year as President; far worse, as Massachusetts is the most solidly Democratic state in the union, it portends defeat for Democrats all across America in November’s congressional elections.
Massachusetts was the only state to vote Democrat in the most lopsided election in US history, the 1972 re-election of Richard Nixon. So the import of this defeat is undeniable even to the most Panglossian of left-wingers: if the Democrats could not hold Teddy Kennedy’s seat, no Democratic legislator anywhere in the US is secure.
The implication is that America and the world must now prepare for the longest lame-duck presidency in history, lasting at least until the 2012 election and, perhaps, until 2016 in the quite possible event that Mr Obama is re-elected alongside a Republican Congress determined to obstruct every idea that he represents. At a time when the need for effective government within America and the challenges for US global leadership are greater than for a generation, this is a potential disaster.
Top of Form 1
BACKGROUND
Obama admits mistakes as Democrats trounced </tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6995664.ece>
Obama's five desperate healthcare options </tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6994955.ece>
Bottom of Form 1
There is one hope. Left-of-centre parties the world over might learn from this electoral disaster. They might start to understand why conservatism has an inbuilt advantage in all advanced democracies and why the near-collapse of the capitalist system has apparently done conservative parties no harm. Progressive parties can hope to overcome this only by ruthless unity and a narrow focus on limited goals.
The conservatives’ advantage is simple: they know exactly what they are trying to achieve. They seek to preserve, as far as possible, existing structures of economic privilege, power and social traditions. That means, of course, the preservation of the capitalist system. The more that it appears in danger, the greater will be the fear of change among the natural majority in any reasonably affluent society, and their main priority will always be to keep the privileges and lifestyles they enjoy. To achieve this, conservative politicians and voters are willing to bury all minor ideological differences and use every conceivable mechanism to keep power.
Progressives, by contrast, are united only by what they are against. They do not like the status quo, which they consider unjust. But once they gain power, as shown by the Democrats’ internecine struggles over healthcare, they are riven by conflicts. Because progressives are fighting for an infinite range of possible reforms, it is much harder to unite behind any specific programme.
The only way for progressive parties to win and keep power in modern democracies is to show great discipline in uniting around a clear and narrow agenda and to behave extremely aggressively towards their conservative opponents.
The Democrats’ failure to capitalise on the post-Lehman economic crisis could serve as an object lesson in how not to do this. Instead of heaping all the blame on the Bush Administration and the extreme free-market ideology of the congressional Republicans, the Democrats tried to pursue a bipartisan approach in Washington, while directing their political fire against bankers on Wall Street. The Republicans were delighted to join the rhetorical attacks on bankers, as it distracted from their own primary responsibility for the disaster.
The Democrats could have argued, quite justly, that what turned a relatively normal boom-bust cycle in housing into the greatest financial disaster in history was the Bush Administration’s incompetence and its ideological refusal to intervene in the mortgage markets and the banking system much earlier.
Instead, Mr Obama effectively exonerated the Bush Administration by accepting personal responsibility for the crisis from the moment of his inauguration. This was brave but foolhardy. As a result, voters now blame the Democrats, not the Republicans, for unemployment. Polls show that the Democrats’ $800 billion jobs and stimulus programme, which is partly responsible for pulling the economy out of recession, is widely confused with the hated $780 billion bank bailout package introduced by the Republicans under President Bush.
Contrast this with how Republicans handled the deeper economic crisis that confronted President Reagan in 1981. Democrats take some comfort that Reagan lost popularity during his first year just as quickly as Mr Obama, but went on to win a landslide victory in 1984.
The key difference, as noted by E. J. Dionne, the Washington Post political commentator, before this week’s Massachusetts debacle, was that Reagan refused to take responsibility for the economic crisis. Instead, he devoted the first two years of his presidency to convincing voters that this economic disaster was entirely the responsibility of Jimmy Carter and the liberal progressive elite. By the time that the economy started improving, voters were so convinced by this that the credit went entirely to Reaganomics.
The economic pattern of the early 1980s may well be repeated. The US economy is likely to start to recover strongly, with a growth rate of more than 5 per cent expected this month.
But it looks increasingly doubtful that Mr Obama and the Democrats will enjoy the benefits. Having won Massachusetts, the Republicans will have no compunction in claiming that what saved the US economy was the conservative backlash. If the Democrats fail to challenge them, this is the version of reality that American voters will start to believe.
 
#17
Perhaps one of our Yank friends can explain this to me:

Dems are huge women's rights supporters - Kennedy killed a young woman and Clinton is a serial rapists, yet both are beloved.

Dems are hugely supported by Blacks, yet, they have (and support) a KKK member in their ranks, Sen Robert Byrd of WVA. Al Gore shows contempt for Blacks. His father led the fight against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yet, Blacks love the Dems.

Dems are huge Latino supporters, as with Blacks, yet, treat their block supporters like 2nd class citizens.

Dems are opposed to school vouchers, yet the majority of Dem politicans send their kids to private schools.

Dems seem to hate Christians, 2nd Amendment supporters, and those opposed to illegal immigration.

I know it is a cultural thing, but, why do the Dems garner such support form those whom they have contempt for?
 
#18
Maybe now they will stop calling us all Massholes!! :D

At the oh so liberal Boston Globe they are picking up their decaf latte's to wash down copious numbers of anti-depressants. You hear the liberal moonbats on talk radio trying to find ways to blame this on Bush as it is obvious it could not be the fault of The Chosen One. Someone I know was talking to the mayor of Cambridge and her wife and they seemed to be in shock over it.

I actually get the feeling that my home state is thinking about rejoining the real world. I think a number of our congressmen are in trouble at the next election in November. The congressman who has the south shore, cape cod and the islands, Bill Delahunt already is making public statements backpedaling from his previous positions. I think Niki Tsongas may be gone as every city and town in her district went for Brown.

I am putting a map of Massachusetts produced by the Globe below. The red towns went Republican and the Blue Democrat. There seems to be a large Dem area at the western end of the state but these are mostly very small town with only a few hundred voters each. If the shape of some of the districts are oddly shaped you have to realize that the state legislature drew these districts to try to ensure that all districts had a Democrat elected. Please remember that Massachusetts was the birthplace of the Gerrymander due to Governor Gerry in the 1800's.


Sorry, I forgot that you cannot attach images in the US Forum. Go to Linky for the map.

If that link does not work try this. No idea why they don't allow attachments. Map linky
 
#20
RedCoat2009 said:
Perhaps one of our Yank friends can explain this to me:

Dems are huge women's rights supporters - Kennedy killed a young woman and Clinton is a serial rapists, yet both are beloved.

Dems are hugely supported by Blacks, yet, they have (and support) a KKK member in their ranks, Sen Robert Byrd of WVA. Al Gore shows contempt for Blacks. His father led the fight against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yet, Blacks love the Dems.

Dems are huge Latino supporters, as with Blacks, yet, treat their block supporters like 2nd class citizens.

Dems are opposed to school vouchers, yet the majority of Dem politicans send their kids to private schools.

Dems seem to hate Christians, 2nd Amendment supporters, and those opposed to illegal immigration.

I know it is a cultural thing, but, why do the Dems garner such support form those whom they have contempt for?
It is absolutely baffling.

Plus, people seem to have forgotten which party was the party of the Confederacy, supported segregation and Jim Crow, and ran an overtly racist, segregationist presidential candidate as late as 1972...

I guess the only explanation is that since the 1960s they have successfully fostered an idea amongst their pet peoples that said pet peoples are entirely dependent on largess emanating from DNC politicians.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Officers 19
E Army Reserve 24
E Lonely Hearts 13

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top