Most polls show a shocking upset to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts. A year ago, who would have thought Obama would be forced to travel to Massachusetts to help campaign for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat?

Talk about a crushing defeat if this happens. Let the finger pointing begin !

Hope and change.

Chokeley

You know the libs are desperate when Ed Schultz said if he lived in Mass. he would vote 10 times. Says he would cheat to keep these bastards out.

I think it just goes to show that even in a district that mostly votes one way or the other, if you don't campaign, you stand a good chance of losing...even if she was way up in the polls just a week ago.

Fish on...

Todd

there is hope for change

What I find kind of interesting is that after Teddy K. passed on I figured that the Dems would rally around his health care legacy and push something through. They didn't and now the special election for his seat just might undo the whole ball of wax.

I welcome the new Senator from Mass. Hopefully the Dems will rediscover the fine art of compromise and reaching across the aisle. Hopefully the GOP will not hold up the fillibuster as Option 1A in their bag of tricks.

I fully expect that one of the moderate R's will fold and the super majority will be regained.
It's politics, just think of all the free exposure, and Dem's slapping your back, glory be!

Maybe Washington State can Hope For Change too.

Not unless Kink County slips into the Sound.

One Whack at a time....

Mf

Very nice win by Brown in a state where Dems outnumber Repubs 3.5 to 1. There must be a lot of acid reflux going around the White House and the Democratic party tonight.

What happened Ed did monkeys just fly outta your butt? You better call me we need to go to lunch so I can find out just how upset you really are.

I don't think the Dems outnumber the Reps 3.5 to 1...I think the Reps and Dems are pretty even, but the other 40% who are independents usually vote for Dems there, which skews the numbers...this time the independents voted for Brown, and at risk of playing the blame game, I blame it all on Chokely...she fukked up, thought she had it in the bag when she won the Dem. primary, and literally went on vacation while Brown went campaigning.

Fish on...

Todd

The people of Mass don't want Obamacare, which is a huge reason she lost her huge lead. The Christmas eve vote was the last nail in the coffin....this current health care plan is DEAD !!!!

Any way you look at it, Mass. is the ultra-lib rock......until now.

Lots of blaming going on today. Extreme name calling gone wild over at MSNBC of course and the standard... The voters are stupid and deserve what they get ...big lib theme today along with blaming the candidate and Obama and the party etc...The hopey changey thingy that hasn't worked out as promised just might have had something to do with today's upset. Hopefully Kerry and Barney are on the block next up there. One bright spot is that the financial markets are happy....

Wake up call for the democrats!
Well here we go back to gridlock

I've seen numbers of 38% Dem, 11% Repub and 51% Independent quite a few places. It looks like the Independents voted for change, got impatient with hope, and took matters into their own hands. Not even AF1 swooping in could pull this one out of the fire.

Maybe, just maybe, much to the chagrin of KK, the Republican party which 12 months ago had one foot over the cliff edge and the other on a banana peel has managed to right its self. Or more likely, the Dems are gonna fumble and throw up all over themselves after building a big lead.

Move along, nothing to see here. Newsflash! They are all assholes, regardless of party. Be it your party or their party, assholes to the core. Move along. SNAFU and FUBAR, all rolled into one nice neat little package.

For some, the news didn't go over so well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=player_embedded

ISO

Grizz, - I don't see any monkeys, but stay tuned! I have never been happy when either party has had a super majority. It makes the majority party undisciplined and dictatorial. Our country is split pretty much down the middle between left and right, the Senate is better when that situation is represented.

the dems have been bending over backwards trying to compromise since the healthcare debate started. that is why the current bill is a steaming pile of @#$^, and the backlash to the backroom deals falls squarely on a party not willing to make a stand for what they were elected on.

honestly, i've always wondered why a party with well over 50 votes to pass a bill with a public option and without all the backroom deals won't just force their opposition to fillibuster the bill. a threat of a fillibuster should not stop a majority from pushing legislation through. make republicans and blue dogs stand on the floor of the senate for months talking - make them fillibuster.

my opinion is that the democrats are losing seats not due to ideas, but not having the balls to enact their campaign promises. people don't like their politicians to be pussies when it comes to governing.

unfortunetely, the outcome of this election will probably result in more meekness from dems and will actually ensure even more losses this fall.

hey dems, you still have a huge majority. you need to work hard to have something to campaign on this fall or you will face huge losses. show some balls and fight. that's why democrats will vote for someone else, lack of fight for the issues they want tackled.

I love that argument. We are now getting hammered because people hate what we are trying to do so let just force it down their throats. We know whats best.

That would be about the dumbest thing ever. Both parties in this country suck and that type of response would likely lead to a R supermajority. That would be just as bad as what we have now.

Why not try the Slick Willy thing. Stop, think, realize people dont like what is happening, change. Real change this time. Quit the Chicago style stuff and actually attempt to govern from where most people in this country are......The center. Send the scare crow back to san fran and well Harry has only got till Nov anyway.

And if the R's want to just stand in the way and do nothing......then screw them. If Pelosi and Reid just want it their way....Screw them too. We need a new party in this country that give a damn about the people of this country and not just scoring pol points.

Last time I will say it BRING BACK THE PARTY OF THE BULL MOOSE!!!

i think the question is why people hate what they are doing. i think it's because they are pussies who won't stand and fight for what got them elected. the majority of people want health care reform. the compromises and bull that comes from attempting to create a fillibuster proof bill is what created a terrible bill. at least that's how i see it. and it's not about forcing it down people's throats, but forcing a vote on what you campaigned on. if it gets fillibustered, fine... but fight for a better bill with a public option. you stand a better chance of getting re-elected in the fall of 2010 if you have passed legislation that you can run on. also, not being a bunch of pussies helps come election time.



the problem is exactly that they think of polling and not of leading. there will be a republican supermajority if the dems keep governing like pussies. plus, the republicans only need a simple majority because the dems just lay down when they are in the minority. again, dems = pussies.

fyi, the idea of a public option in the health care debate is already "the center". the far left idea is single-payer and the far right idea is "let them eat cake".

"if the R's want to stand in the way and do nothing"?!?!?!? that's exactly what they are doing, which would be political suicide if their opponents took advantage and forced them to fillibuster in favor of the status-quo.

we're both unhappy with the dems, just for different reasons.

Topwater

Americans want health care reform they just don't want this reform. 78% of Brown voters are against this government health care bill. Certain dems are doing everything they can to get away from this bill. It says allot when Barney Frank thinks they need to take a step back. You think ramming this through shows strength. I just think it shows arrogance going against the majority of the american people.

That's it in a nut shell.

sorry, maybe i wasn't clear. they should ram this current bill up the "you know what" of lieberman, nelson, snowe, and all the others that helped create this heaping pile of compromise @#$%. they should get back to what they promised on the campaign trail and put it to a f'ing vote.

as for ramming it through. all i'm talking about is forcing the republicans, droopy, and conservative dems to back up their fillibuster talk with a real fillibuster.

put a non-compromised health reform bill up for a vote. sorry if you confused my anger at dems with support of the current bill.

Actually, they like it in Mass., and they already have it...they're not too stoked on paying for what they already have.

Fish on...

Todd

Reminds me of Caddyshack...."You'll get nothing and LIKE IT!!!"

Isn't the health care plan in Mass a giant fiscal disaster? I would love it too if I got everything and someone else paid for it.

From the Boston Globe:

MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.

What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

The state's plan flunks on all counts.

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.

In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.

Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.

There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.

A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.

People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.

We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.

Susanne L. King, M.D., practices in Berkshire County.

What Todd fails to realize is polls on Massachusetts are not all in favor of there health care reform. Some polls show numbers down into the 30's that are in favor. The reform failed in it's attempt to cut health care costs.

That assumes that Obama's camapign promises were not just BS to get elected. He has really proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a phony....promise all day then get elected and forget about most of the promises....change your teleprompter based on how the wind is blowing and not on the principles that alot of people based their vote for him on. I think people are seeing that the emperor has not clothes.

Topwater,

I posted the same video on page 2 of this thread..LOL! (great video, although that same video has been used for a number of "issues")

ISO

In other circumstances I might have said it wasn't so much a vote for Brown as a vote against Chokeley. However, if Mass. can't find a Dem who is well qualified to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate, who and where else could? I'm thinking the Dems fielded a lousy candidate, an embarassment to Kennedy's liberal legacy, especially pertaining to the health care issue, Mass. independents were having none of it, and Brown, the better candidate won.

I've always liked 538...non-partisan and usually pretty straightforward, right to the heart of the matters at hand.

Fish on...

Todd

Hey KK you don't happen to remember what thread that was on do ya? I wouldn't mind seeing that again.

KK...write this down...YOU ARE RIGHT...the Big Stick video is way better than the one about Brown.

ISO

Now days the Reps would be happy just to have a good bowel movement. It's now the party of no + 1. Nothing to see here....move along.

Another thing to remember is that Brown only has 2 years to serve until that seat is up for grabs again. I HIGHLY doubt that the Dems are gonna run another schmuck for the 6 year term after gettin' beat this time... and I'll bet money that Brown loses it next go 'round. Especially if he coddles the Teabaggers.

This pretty well sums it up IMO:

“When you raise people’s expectation for change, and then what they get is something altogether different than what they expected, combined with an economic collapse and a lot of corresponding anxiety and fear, you have a pretty good stew for revolt.”

I liked the spin that Obama put on the election of Brown--- It was Bush's fault.

That douche bag just can't keep his trap shut, he is his worst enemy.

I just about choked on the pizza I was eating when I heard him say that!

It's not just Massachusetts. American voters are fickle. The overwhelming majority of Americans now come from the various "instant gratification" generations, baby boomers, gen X, Y, and whatever. The voters heard Obama say we're going to fix the economy and either didn't hear or heard but ignored him saying that it's going to take a long time to do it. Neither patience nor tolerance is an American voter's virtue.

While I still think health care reform is essential to our national interest, at 1600 pages, I sure haven't read the damn thing; I doubt even KK has read it; and I haven't heard even one Senator or Representative say they've read it. They're all voting Party line IMO, and likely are dumber than I am as to the bill's contents. Democracy sucks. Except for all those alternatives that suck even worse.

Congratulations Senator Brown! May you rise to the occasion to which you've been elected, although I have my doubts and won't be holding my breath.

Sg

He is presidential looking.

next will be the hollywood marriage Brown/Palin.

not all is well....Beck no likey pretty boy:

Beck humorously, but harshly, slammed Scott Brown, Republican winner of the race for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in Massachusetts, for proclaiming on national television, during his victory speech, that his two daughters were "available."

Beck launched into a long rant about how Brown had just put his daughters up for grabs on a "meat market" and how shocked he was that anyone could say something like that on national television. Then came that moment that differentiates Beck on the radio from Beck on the TV: he started comparing Brown to Gary Condit.

I want a chastity belt on this man. I want his every move watched in Washington. I don't trust this guy. This one could end with a dead intern. I'm just saying. It could end with a dead intern

I disagree SG

American voters are disappointed because the last two administrations seem to be disconnected with the public. This administration failed to realize that the most important issues to the public were jobs. Months were wasted on a health care bill that was extremely unpopular with the american people while jobs were being lost by the thousands. Small business owners were afraid to hire new employees with the coming threat of health care mandates, higher taxes, and there inability to borrow money. As of June 2009 the federal government had added nearly 200,000 jobs while the private sector had lost close to 7.3 mil. During the recession federal salaries grew at twice the rate of the private sector. All of this added up to the people of Massachusetts sending a message to our elected officials.

I have no idea "why" Mass. voted against the Dem's.....that's my contribution.

I also have no inclination to understand a Boston mind set, but I seriously doubt that a national mind set can be drawn from such a segment of the US population. (of course, I base that on the fact that not much of anything Mass. does impresses me)

I cringed when he said that..I think he caught a lot of heat from the family.

Beck is such a f'n goat...............and anyone who listens to him would lick the sweat off a donkey's balls.

obviously spoken by someone who has done a lot of both!

racist!!!

People want change, they wanted it before Obama made it a campaign slogan and they will continue to vote accordingly I believe.

I imagine if things continue to plod along as they have been, we will be seeing an upset in 2012 as well.

Doubt it. Especially if they run Palin. More likely if Obama can't right the ship the voters are going to give up on the entire process figuring our govt is beyond fixing. Maybe a billion man march on Washington will be the ticket.

I like that march on Washington idea. I think it ought to take place this year however. So many jackasses back there in DC we would need lots of prison buses to drive them all to the air force planes that will take them to Egypt for interrogation and imprisonment or firing squad.

I would be surprised if they ran with Palin (although not that surprised).

It would be an over the falls scenario for GOP.

I can't wait to see what kind of fun today's Supreme Court decision is gonna bring to the game. My guess is some serious fuccery.

That decision shines a light on the very root of the problem. Corporations are considered citizens or in this case an "association" of citizens and therefore have rights as if they were a living breathing person.

Let corruption reign supreme! Or is it, "Let corruption reign, Supreme!"?

So Mikkelsen is a Beck listener, huh?



What a shock.

Do you have any more boot pics you could post on this thread, Alan?

Being fed up with Ds and Rs, many wished for a third party. Thanks to the Supreme Court, ya got one now: Corporations.

Already very evident how much pull the corps have was after the bank bailout....the banks took the money and then thumbed their nose at the govt and said F you we aren't going to loan it out. Now the pull is times one thousand.

Thanks to the SCOTUS ruling yesterday, democracy as a form of government is no longer operable in the US. Not that it has been doing all that well these past 30 years or so, whenever PACs became popular. Corporations do rule the US today. Tomorrow the world? As was said many years ago, we have the best government that money can buy.

Sg

+1

AMEN to that AM.

This decision just effectively silenced what little voice the individual PEOPLE... BOTH Republican and Democrat in this country had in their own self-governance.

Roger B. Taney just breathed a sigh of relief in Hell... knowing that John Roberts will be taking his place.

Amen Aunty!

Hank, the WSJ and business interests in general have never seen a problem between money and politics, likely because money is their definition of life itself. I've heard such commentators say, long before this SCOTUS decision that they don't think there can be such a thing as too much money in political campaigns. I speculate that's because they don't really see individual Americans or average people has having a role in politics, if after all the purpose of politics is to serve monied corporate interests. In their world view, I mean, what else is there?

When one boils down the essence of life to money, as these corporate types appear to, the rest of us really are nothing more than cogs that make their wheel go 'round.

Up the revolution!!

Sg

So... we've gone from the dire implications of the SCOTUS decision to let corporations just flat-out BUY all future elections without even having to hide it anymore... to Hank blamin' unions for all of this country's ills.

Typical...

Give him hell Aunty.

There seems to be two sides to this thing: I have read a couple articles in the last day or so that have quoted a few CEO's as saying that they don't like the decision either because the politicians will now be showing up with their hands out.

My guess is that this will end up like most things, it ain't gonna be great but it won't be terrible either.

I know Hank, they always have their hands out. All this ruling probably does is redirect money that is already out there floating around. Instead of a 527 group spending it, someone else will.