And the winner is...

Whoops, nobody thought this would happen.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100119brown_54_-coakley_45-_kennedy_1/srvc=home&position=0

I would say discuss but I know what a firestorm that will cause.

When even Massachusetts is upset with all the spending going on then you know they've gone too far. Course I could have told them that.

You knew it was coming, this is one of the better ones to come out recently Hitler's reaction

Do you think the Democrats will take another look at their stuff, lookover their shoulder, or just march along as if nothing is changed?

Dan

914Driver wrote: Do you think the Democrats will take another look at their stuff, lookover their shoulder, or just march along as if nothing is changed? Dan

I don't think this will stop the dems' slobbering love affair with thee obama, nor will it get them thinking twice about socialized healthcare. It's all about the power and control. They know most Americans don't want it. They know most Americans are way more concerned about double-digit unemployment and friends and family losing their jobs and homes. Fascism's a mother berkeleyer.

I DO think that November 2nd is going to be berkeleying awesome.

poopshovel wrote: I DO think that November 2nd is going to be berkeleying awesome.

I wish I could share your sunny disposition... but neither party is representing anything but their own agenda - and its only different on the fringes. At its core it is "Keep 'em placated and bilk 'em dry" on both sides. The key differentiator is just how they go about it.

Ahhhh, but the other party as you put it isn't dedicated to removing all Americans liberty and freedoms. And in any case if there are enough of the other party then the Dems have to justify their actions and not run rough shod over everyone cause they won't have an absolute majority and can pass any bill they want.

Why do you think there has been such a rush for the health care bill, they know they won't have the mandate to approve it after November.

carguy123 wrote: Why do you think there has been such a rush for the health care bill, they know they won't have the mandate to approve it after November.

The Dems grossly mis-read what voters really wanted; they NEVER had a mandate to fast-track health care reform.

Voters took the campaign rhetoric to heart, believing the wasteful spending, catering to special interests and business-as-usual tactics would end; voters were wrong.

When Massachsetts Democrats turn out to vote for a Republican candidate, you know things have gone south in a big way. This time the voters got it right.

carguy123 wrote: Ahhhh, but the other party as you put it isn't dedicated to removing all Americans liberty and freedoms. .

Really? Have you heard of the Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act?

I have to agree with Purple...neither party works for us, they work for themselves and to preserve their power. They are really one and the same when it comes down to it save for a few details that serve as distractions to fool most of the nation's voters into voting for one or the other of the two parties.

carguy123 wrote: Ahhhh, but the other party as you put it isn't dedicated to removing all Americans liberty and freedoms.

Oh yes they are... or are they not the people who thought wiretaps on american citizens w/o a court order was a fantastic idea? I've seen a lot of both sides come and go and its pretty hard to tell the difference between them looking in the rearview mirror.

TJ wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Ahhhh, but the other party as you put it isn't dedicated to removing all Americans liberty and freedoms. .

Really? Have you heard of the Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act? I have to agree with Purple...neither party works for us, they work for themselves and to preserve their power. They are really one and the same when it comes down to it save for a few details that serve as distractions to fool most of the nation's voters into voting for one or the other of the two parties.

Damn... beat me to it. I need to type faster.

oldsaw wrote: When Massachsetts Democrats turn out to vote for a Republican candidate, you know things have gone south in a big way. This time the voters got it right.

Not quite, since they still voted for one of the two major-party candidates.

Nothing is going to change in a meaningful way - certainly not for the better - until we get a significant 3rd- or 4th-party presence. Until then it will be business as usual, with the Democrats trying to remove everything that's individualist or bad for you and the Republicans trying to remove everything that's smart or fun... and both sides spending more money that is not theirs.

In reply to poopshovel:

Hearty-click for you, Mr. Shovel. I'd buy you a beer, but I don't know where you live.

My canned response (admitedly I posted this in another forum and this is a copy paste) - I am not a fan of floundering in a political thread, so heres my best attempt at being switzerland....

4cf over on another forum said: Dems/Repubs...libs/cons...its all relative. Wrap your mind around the idea that a 2 party system diverts all objective free thinking by focusing your attention on "the other teams wrongness" and youll see where true traitorism may lie...but thats a post for when I have all day to write. Anyway, the real question is, what are any of us doing - other than voting (for those of us that actually do vote) - to rectify the situation? Posting in an off topic section of a relatively unknown website or on a social networking site that really doesnt serve any real purpose other than saying hi to a pal, does not help matters much. do something or shut up.

Duke wrote:

oldsaw wrote: When Massachsetts Democrats turn out to vote for a Republican candidate, you know things have gone south in a big way. This time the voters got it right.

Not quite, since they still voted for one of the two major-party candidates. Nothing is going to change in a meaningful way - certainly not for the better - until we get a significant 3rd- or 4th-party presence. Until then it will be business as usual, with the Democrats trying to remove everything that's individualist or bad for you and the Republicans trying to remove everything that's smart or fun... and both sides spending more money that is not theirs.

We'll have to agree to disagree, at least regarding this particular election. Massachusetts voters had a third-party candidate alternative and chose to ignore him. Either he failed to impress voters as a viable choice or voters chose the candidate who would most effectively take their message to Washington.

In the big picture, maybe a third party would work if it developed a platform that drew support from Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and independents. Without universal support, a third party would only pull votes away from either of the big two and increase chances that one of them will be in power.

The two party system would better represent the people if voters would stop putting incumbents in office and carefully vet the candidates who want to replace them.

poopshovel wrote: ....I DO think that November 2nd is going to be berkeleying awesome.

I think it will be awesome also. The reaction to the current Democratic majority will likely be to vote in mostly Republicans (much like the current Democrats got voted in in reaction to the Republicans). Then we can look forward to the same s&*t (different day) from the Repubs, and nothing meaningful will get done (other then do their best to shovel money to their states to get them re-elected).

The original health car bill was probably crap, the current one almost certainly is, but hey, at least they tried, you have to give them that. The Dems at least tried to do something in one year that the Repubs never even bothered to attempt in 8 years...

...but who knows, maybe they will all forget there primary purpose is to defeat and beat down the other "side" and actually do something for the good of the country!! (what a concept)...

oldsaw wrote: ....The two party system would better represent the people if voters would stop putting incumbents in office and carefully vet the candidates who want to replace them.

But that is the problem isn't it. It really ISN'T the voters that vet the candidates, its the parties! They choose to support who they want, that person gets the money and support, that person gets elected (from either party).

Just voting out the incumbent only results in the see-sawing we are seeing recently, and (unfortunately) will disadvantage that seat against the more experienced / connected / powerful longtime incumbents.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: In reply to poopshovel: Hearty-click for you, Mr. Shovel. I'd buy you a beer, but I don't know where you live.

he'll be at the challenge. you can buy him a beer there.

November will be exciting. Hopefully some voters get it and start voting for someone who has neither a R nor a D next to his/her name. Look at the poll results, the 'tea party' which isn't actually a political party, has more votes than Republicans or Democrats. If some serious third/fourth/fifth party people get up there we might see a return to a representative government. Run for office, guys. Organizations like GOOOH are trying to do this, but they might be too ambitious. Time will tell.

Just voting out the incumbent only results in the see-sawing we are seeing recently, and (unfortunately) will disadvantage that seat against the more experienced / connected / powerful longtime incumbents.

As I was skimming through this thread, for a moment I thought you wrote 'incoherent' instead of 'incumbent'. Freudian slip, I guess.

I hear a lot of preaching to the choir here. I'm all about a 3rd party candidate; but I'm not ruling out hard-core, back to basics Republicans. What I can't stand are career politicians, and I'm refusing to vote for one regardless of what letter is next to their name this year, even if it means a write-in.

The fact that we've got a bunch of attorneys turned career politicians with absolutely ZERO business experience taking over industry after industry, arbitrarily taxing wages/industries, and in their ideal world, determining pay rates for privately owned companies, makes me physically ill.

Politics used to be what you "got into" after years of being a successful citizen, working in the private sector and/or dedicating your life to military service.

I'd like to see politics in our country represented by successful people who have a great understanding of our nation's history, and respect, understanding, and willingness to uphold and defend our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Whether they call themselves Libertarians, Republicans, Constitutionalists, Teabaggers or whatever doesn't matter to me.

I heard some reference recently to the fact that Athenian Democracy used a lottery to select officials, interesting idea. It does have some interesting possibilities. Here is a description from Wiki (!?):

Selection by lottery was the standard means as it was regarded as the more democratic: elections would favour those who were rich, noble, eloquent and well-known, while allotment spread the work of administration throughout the whole citizen body, engaging them in the crucial democratic experience of, to use Aristotle's words, "ruling and being ruled in turn" (Politics 1317b28–30). The allotment of an individual was based on citizenship rather than merit or any form of personal popularity which could be bought. Allotment therefore was seen as a means to prevent the corrupt purchase of votes and it gave citizens a unique form of political equality as all had an equal chance of obtaining government office. The random assignment of responsibility to individuals who may or may not be competent has obvious risks, but the system included features meant to obviate possible problems. Athenians selected for office served as teams (boards, panels). In a group someone will know the right way to do things and those that do not may learn from those that do. During the period of holding a particular office everyone on the team is observing everybody else. There were however officials such as the nine archons, who while seemingly a board carried out very different functions from each other.

Could be interesting. You could do it kind of like jury service, except you would get paid a lot better. Maybe make one of the qualification is that you need to have voted in the last 5 (10?) elections. Of course, no felons etc.

All it really means is that instead of doing things half-assed, Congress will now accomplish nothing in the next three years. Not sure which is better.

This was mostly a vote against that particular Democrat. Oakley was a poor choice as a candidate. The only reason she coasted through the last weeks of her campaign is because she and her campaign staffers were convinced there was no way to lose Teddy's seat. Typical Democratic arrogance, frankly, arrogance that has particularly been on display in Congress lately.

Aside from passing health care reform, this is hardly a huge blow against the left. Don't forget that MA already has health care legislation similar to what's being considered at the national level. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Brown loses his seat in 2012. Look, he's now the junior senator of one of the most liberal states in the union. There's a reason Teddy was reelected so many times. Brown would do well to not forget that.

Since I'm on a roll... Republican leaders have dropped nearly every traditional conservative ideal. Small government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility have been utterly abandoned. (I for one would like to see all three reinstituted, and with great gusto.) They’re pro-life but against universal health care, as if the right to life ends as soon as you’re born. They’re no longer conservatives, they’re authoritarians. (See - reading the election as a repudiation of the left.) Democratic leaders, for their part, have forgotten what it’s like to have an original idea, a spine, or how to be reach across the aisle. Their promises are meaningless. Neither party serves the people who vote for them. They serve purely corporate interests.

My problem is that I do a lot of contract work and I keep changing health insurance. My COBRA from Robert Half ran out this month and I am still waiting to hear if Blue Cross will accept me for an individual plan. My current employer does not offer health insurance and more and more employers don't. I am over 50 and I am very healthy now but if I ever get a pre-existing condition I am screwed.

The Republican solution for this is .... what??

Maybe the time has come for me to start sending resumes to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Oz has an age limit for immigration...

as long as you get accepted to BCBS on the personal pay plan, you can just keep it, so you wouldn't have to worry about any preexisting conditions unless there was one that for some reason had not been discovered before now or something.

Snowdoggie wrote: I am over 50 and I am very healthy now but if I ever get a pre-existing condition I am screwed. The Republican solution for this is .... what??

Who knows what their proposed solution might be? All the proposals have been buried in committee by the opposition and/or virtually ignored by media.

It's another example of the "you cannot blame one without blaming the other" situation.