Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Winners and Losers in the Massachusetts special election

Sen.-elect Scott Brown's (R) stunning upset in Tuesday's Massachusetts special election has shocked the political world, forcing the White House and Congressional Democrats to reconsider their next steps legislatively and politically with the 2010 midterm election looming in less than ten months.

The most obvious winner from last night was Brown, a little known state Senator -- one of five(!) Republicans in the chamber -- who, in the space of a few days, has become a nationally known figure and, in some circles, is already being discussed as a potential vice presidential candidate.

And, the big losers are apparent as well: state Attorney General Martha Coakley, who saw a sure-thing Senate seat disappear into thin air in the space of a week, and the White House who saw the near-certain passage of the President's health care bill grow far more complicated (impossible?) in a single night.

But, here at the Fix, we pride ourselves on going behind the music to get at some of the less obvious but no less important winners and losers. Our lists -- culled from conversations with party strategists on both sides and our own observations -- are below. Your thoughts are welcome in the comments section.

WINNERS

John Cornyn/National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee: The NRSC -- under the leadership of the Texas Republican -- had a poll in hand in mid-December that put Brown down 13 points and showed Coakley only at 50 percent, a sure sign that the race was winnable. Rather than trumpet the findings, Cornyn and executive director Rob Jesmer made the decision to quietly funnel $500,000 to the Massachusetts Republican party and begin sending staff to the state to take advantage of the opportunity without alerting their opponents to the upset possibility. The committee stuck to that under-the-radar strategy even as they came under intense scrutiny -- from yours truly among others -- for not spending money on television ads in the final weeks of the campaign. Did the NRSC and Cornyn benefit from a political climate ready for a change and a Democratic candidate who drastically underperformed? Absolutely. But, the job of the party committees is to see opportunity before others do and take advantage of it. And, that's exactly what Cornyn and the NRSC did.

Mike Capuano: In the final days of the Coakley defeat, there were more than a few Democrats wishing that Capuano, who finished second in the primary, had been their candidate. (There are even t-shirts being sold that express that sentiment!) A son of Somerville, Capuano demonstrated a populist appeal in the primary that would have been the perfect counter to Brown in a general election. Democrats won't forget that Capuano was the only member of the delegation to put his name forward against Coakley either. Brown will almost certainly be at the top of Democrats' target list in 2012 and it's hard to see how Capuano isn't at the front of the line in terms of potential candidates. Rep. Ed Markey and former Rep. Marty Meehan -- both of whom have long coveted a seat in the Senate -- HAVE to be kicking themselves this morning.

Republican Netroots: If one of the stories of the last decade in politics was the rise of the liberal online community, the Brown election suggests that the story of this decade -- or at least the first years of it -- may be how Republicans found their mojo online. Not only did Brown use the web to fuel his massive fundraising in the final weeks of the campaign but in every measure of the social networking world he far outdistanced Coakley -- nine times as many views of his You Tube videos, five times as many Facebook friend and three times as many followers on Twitter. Did his dominance in this arena win Brown the election? No. But, it gave his supporters productive vehicles in which to channel their energy and enthusiasm for the candidate. For Democrats who pooh-pooh Republicans' efforts online, the Massachusetts race should serve as a major wake-up call.

Eric Fehnstrom/Neil Newhouse: The consulting team for Brown -- Newhouse also did polling for the NRSC -- got the message exactly right and didn't let the crush of national attention in the final week distract them. Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), may have won the race in late December when he cut the now famous "pickup" ad for Brown, a commercial that laid the groundwork for the upset to come. Newhouse's numbers showed the race winnable for the better part of the last month, data that allowed Brown -- and the NRSC -- to get a jump on their Democratic counterparts.

The Boston Globe: For all the negative attention paid to the decline and fall of the mainstream media -- and regional newspapers in particular -- the Globe proved to the political world that it can still be a major player in races. The coverage was comprehensive and aggressive; it was to the Globe that Coakley made her dismissive -- and potentially decisive -- reference to shaking hands with voters at Fenway Park.

Curt Schilling: For someone who L-O-V-E-S the spotlight, the last week was a dream come true for the former Red Sox great. While many -- including us -- dismissed his initial endorsement of Brown, Coakley's seeming unfamiliarity with Schilling on a Boston radio show turned him into a campaign issue over night. (The clip had been viewed more than 158,000 on You Tube as of this writing.) Expect Schilling's name to come up for the next major political opening in the Bay State. And, no, we are not kidding.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: In light of the Massachusetts loss, the DCCC's record of five straight special election wins -- including one last fall in a difficult environment in Upstate New York -- looks a lot more impressive. Yes, we know that the majority of the DCCC's special wins came in a far better political environment for Democrats nationally but they also came in far less friendly territory for the party generally (Louisiana, Mississippi etc.).

LOSERS

Gov. Deval Patrick: Patrick was among the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents in the country before the special election. Given what happened to Coakley, Patrick can clearly no longer rely on the Democratic nature of the state to pull him through this fall. And, ask any Republican and they will tell you that Charlie Baker, the likely GOP gubernatorial nominee, is a far better candidate than Scott Brown. That's a dangerous combination for Patrick.

EMILY'S List: The group, which supports pro-choice Democratic women, was touting its abilities in the wake of Coakley's pedestrian primary win. But, the organization didn't seem to help Coakley nearly as much in the general election, particularly on the fundraising front where her campaign insisted they were struggling as late as December. It's hard not to see this race, which, had Coakley won, would have marked her as the first woman elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, as a missed opportunity for EMILY's List.

Establishment Candidates: While Republicans were rightly touting the victory as a herald of things to come in the midterm elections, the anti-establishment fervor that Brown captured is not an unalloyed good or bad thing for either party. People like Chuck Devore who is running for the Republican Senate nomination against establishment pick Carly Fiorina in California have to feel emboldened by last night's results. Re-creating the circumstances that led to a Brown victory won't be as easy as some of these insurgent candidates think but the volatility in the electorate suggests that no incumbent should take his or her re-election for granted.

Cookie Cutter Democratic ads: Coakley's ads -- both the positive and the negative -- did little to distinguish her from the sort of status quo Democratic image in the state (and nationally) that voters were reacting against. This political environment seems to punish standard-issue sorts of commercials while rewarding the more folksy, low-fi commercials that barely look like political ads at all. Democrats would do well to learn that lesson heading into November.

Legislative Accomplishments: Whether or not the White House and congressional Democrats can find a way to pass health care, it's hard to see them getting any other major pieces of legislation approved with only 59 seats in the Senate and a multitude of elected Democrats who are now going to be scared of their own shadows.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 20, 2010; 1:07 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Jon Stewart and the Massachusetts Senate election
Next: Palin hits the campaign trail for McCain, Bachmann, Perry

Comments

reason5 had a good question from the other thread:

"If Democrats truly want bi-partisan reform, why not first pass the Coburn/Burr wellness act? It deals greatly in dealing with tort reform & preventive medicine."

Posted by: JakeD | January 21, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Very much so, Jake.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 21, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

the number is 36 million less around 12 million who would be excluded.
Who cares if the 20 year olds aren't covered, I certanly don't. They voted in Mass against national HC so obviously its more impt for them to buy an app than HC. I would however demand that they now be required to pay cash at their er and that the county tax payers no longer pick up their HC tab.

Incidentally the dollar is up since tues and the DOW down over 350 points. Now that is change we can believe in.

Posted by: leichtman | January 21, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Fist of all there aren's estimated 48 million working people without insurance. That fact is just wrong or worse made up. There are and no one knows for sure a large percentage of people that do not have health insurance, however, those numbmer are somewhat hard to pin down. A percentage of the approximately 30-45 million and by the way that's a big spread have opt'd out of any health care insurance. Most are in there late teens and 20's; no surprise there. Some think it's the money needed, but, I submit when a young 21 figures $85 for health care insurance or a night out, they go for the night out. Others, are college students who depending upon Dad and Moms plans don't need until they are 23 to 25 years old.

Posted by: jfbyers | January 21, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Fairlingtonblade:

You're welcome (I hope I met your "challenge").

Posted by: JakeD | January 21, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

unwilling to compromise, what a joke. This bill has been so watered down with compromises that he has gutted its efficacy. McConnell has had 58 of his proposals included in the bill and still has zero interest in supporting it.They have added unnecessary antiabortion language to the bill and still nothing from Rs. The bill expanded funds for small town and rural hospitals to accomodate Snowe, Collins and Grassley and still no movement. They have stripped out the Public Option and Medicare at 55 and still no Rs. Mark inquires what does Snowe and the Rs want. Simple answer mark: to win more Congressional seats. As a D I want them to stop it now and spend the next ten months defining Rs as Obstructionists. This bill should have been voted on last Sept but instead Reid gave Rs more time and look what happened. Absolutely nothing will change regardless of any D accomodations. Start over and keep this issue on the front pages of voters for ten more months. That would truly be the definition of insanity and stupidity. Americans want to continue to suffer with an abusive HC system, that is fine with me. I have mine, expensive as it is, the heck with any teabggers who lack coverage. That is the R philosophy isn't it?

Posted by: leichtman | January 21, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Jake,

Thanks for the response, though it's not specifically applicable to my particular situation (employer provided health care, NQA). Filing legal action while fighting debilitating or deadly disease not to mention being denied care for inability to pay, well, that's just adding insult on top of injury. The stories are known and indefensible. People have died. It's likely that the relevant contract law could be tightened. Getting insurance after a diagnosis of cancer is reasonable grounds for recission. Having payment (and therefore care) denied because one had a mole that was precancerous, is morally indefensible. Some sort of binding arbitration with the insurer not picking the arbiter might be a useful reform.

BTW - CC didn't mention Obama as his winners and losers as he was going for those that might not be obvious. However, Obama may not be that big a loser. One of the big winners of the 1994 election was Clinton. He was getting slapped around by a similarly large Democratic majority. Once the Democrats lost control of Congress, he was able to wrest control of the agenda from Newt and govern as a centrist.

Losing the Mass. seat should be a huge wake-up call to those Senators and Representatives who want to keep their seats. If the loss of a seat now (we'll see if Brown can defend it) alters the trajectory of Congress, the 2010 elections might look a bit diffferent as a consequence.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 21, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

I (and any attorney) can defend recission. You and United Health Care agreed to a contract based on certain knowns and unknowns -- their underwriting department assigned you a certain amount it was willing to pay based on that imformation -- if you lied about any information, then United Health Care did not get the benefit of the bargain. There are, unfortunately, over-zealous claims adjusters who pursue unjust recission in bad faith. You currently have multiple remedies for that scenario (which is the flip side of the coin, denying YOU the benefit of the bargain). I am the first to admit that insurance companies hire good lawyers for just these purposes, but there are just as good consumer / class action lawyers too. The system works in the vast majority of cases, however, so there's no need to toss it out. We also can't agree to start down the path of socialism. There has to be some middle ground.

Now that the Dems have conceded they will wait for Scott Brown to be seated to be part of the process, perhaps we will finally get the bi-partisan bill that Obama promised. Who better to bring a fresh perspective than one of the lone Republicans who voted for Romneycare, who has seen it actually implemented and knows what works / doesn't work? But this time it has to ALL (including any conference committee negotiations) be broadcast on C-SPAN.

We already have a good starting point. But, we need to make it comprehensive with no special deals for unions or Nebraska. No coverage for illegal aliens means there has to be some way to distinguish between eligible participants and those who will be deported, keeping in mind all applicable judicial decisions in that regard. No federal funds for abortion / guaranteed protections for ER workers who object to abortion on moral grounds (yes, AG Coakley, I'm looking at you). Tort reform and guarantees that free market healthcare insurance survives, perhaps by allowing competition across State lines, short of turning every insurance company non-profit. Then we can talk about the best ways to address cost controls, unjust recission, pre-existing conditions, portability, etc.

I hope that satisfies you.

Posted by: JakeD | January 21, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

37th - I hope we can find some common ground. I wonder what might have emerged had the Democrats had 57 or 58 seats. Neither Sen. Nelson nor Sen. Lieberman has emerged with their reputations enhanced. As a native Cornhusker, it has pained me to have my state painted in such a venal light.

What I do know is that the current model is unsustainable. It holds us back. At times, I've had ideas that could be commercialized. Being responsible not merely for income but also for benefits, it's a big risk to take. Were any individual able to purchase insurance equivalent to mine at cost, that'd work for me.

I've yet to hear one person tap dancing on the death of the supermajority defend recission. I suspect that leapin and armpeg are safely secure in their own nanny state. Time for a cold splash of the real world.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 21, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

BB and Ira, thanks for responding to my question. I was really curious about what conservative posters who have said "let us start over" actually think of when they talk about health care reform. I too am curious about what constitutes the 80% agreement both McConnell and McCain spoke of. I want to know what new Sen. Brown thinks is workable health care reform. I thought I knew what Sen. Snowe wanted.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 21, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade


We have been talking about a truly bipartisan bill for days.


The thing is, with the democrats having 60 votes, they wanted no part of a compromise - because they somehow thought they would take all the credit and it would lead to electorial windfalls in the future.


Life doesn't work that way.


I still think a real bipartisan bill is the best way to go.


However, even today, the democrats appear completely unwilling to compromise - they seem absolutely confused where they stand politically.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 21, 2010 12:36 AM | Report abuse

oh yes it comes down to mal practice reform. The phony argument we keep hearing that acounts for less than 1/2 of 1% of the total cost of HC according to a study by former R state of Texas Insur Commissioners. Incidentally if you want a chuckle ask anyone here in Texas how much their HC premiums have gone down since 2004 when the nation's most Draconian mal practice caps were put into place.We have some of the nation's highest premiums. Just blame lawyers, unions, and Ds; that is their answer. Certainly HC corporate profits wouldn't have anything to do with it. And where is that clarion call at this site to end the exemption for HC corporate antitrust shielding. Righties here were pounding the table to end that exemption back in Nov. are now deafeningly silent.
Forget HC reform. It is a total joke to Rs who use it as just another excuse to demonize lawyers and unions. Nothing else.

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Excellent questions, Mark. I'll offer a few thoughts.

1. Mitch McConnell stated that the Republican caucus could agree on 80% of what was in the bill. Was this simply faux bipartisan rhetoric? If not, let's find that 80%.

2. Let's hit some sticking points.

a. Tort reform. Bring it in and bring it on.

b. National exchanges. As long as this isn't an excuse to run roughshod over states' rights*, go for it. (*I thought Republicans believed in states' rights.)

3. Abuses in the current system. Does anyone around here think it's right to deny payment ex post facto? Does anyone around here think that medical bankruptcies are a good thing?

You're fond of asking questions, Jake. Answer one for once. I have a son with autism. Do you think that United Health Care should go trolling around my medical history so they could deny my son medical care? Stand up for once in your online life. Don't take the easy way. Don't take the cheap shot. I don't think you have it in you. Prove me wrong.

4. Cutting Medicare/Medicaid.

This was clearly a cynical calculation, though one might say the same of the Democrats in 2005. How one can talk about unfunded mandates and in the same breath decry cuts in Medicare is a case of breathtaking cynicism.

To those Republicans dancing over the Democrats' grave, I'll offer you just a little perspective. As of October 2005, Republicans held 55 seats in the U.S. Senate and had an unassailable majority in the House. Well, maybe not. The permanent majority lasted 12 years in the House. About as long as the thousand year Reich you're so fond of citing,.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

certainly you can provide us with a treatise on why the nuclear option was such a grand idea.

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

ANYONE ELSE?

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"The Republicans’ primary defense of the nuclear option is that the filibuster thwarts majority rule: Why should 41 Senators have the power to block the wishes of 59, McConnell argued?"

In 2005 I urged my Senators to take the R bait and allow them the nuclear option. I suspected then that if passed they would try and undo it once they lost control of the Senate. Oh how right I was. Someone should approach Lieberman, who was the architect of the compromise and ask him if today's R obstructionism is what he intended to avoid. Even better would be to replay daily McConnell's Demand for an Up or Down Vote. I remember listening to Rhandi Rhodes mockingly play it over and over again like a broken record. Up or Down Vote, Up or Down Vote...

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD

Today marks three years until Obama leaves office.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

LOL. You are a lawyer and do not know that Miranda is about invoking your fifth amendment rights. Friends tell me how difficult it is to pass the Ca Bar Exam lol

Note my detailed strategy on how Ds should respond to yesterday's debacle. Do precisely what McConnell did in May 2005. Every day we heard the mantra: we demand an UP OR DOWN vote. Why aren't Ds demanding the same today?

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I never said "Miranda" rights (they obviously invoked their FIFTH AMENDMENT rights though). Does anyone else want to discuss the actual topic: "Winners and Losers in the Massachusetts special election"?

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

you are making a legal pont using the Sahilis to snidely suggest they have Miranda Rights which you know they don't. I am a criminal defense lawyer and not about to stand by and have you mislead readers here about relevant points of law. Incidentally anyone who has done criminal defense law also fully knows that there are legal ways for the police and our military interrogators to easily and legally get around Miranda. Your remarks about Miranda are regurgitated straight out of Hannity and Fox News, whether or not legally accurate.
I will agree with you about one point, HC is dead. Obama would be best to go on national tv and say he tried, Ds in Congress tried to compromise with Rs, and unless the filibuster rule is nuked or at least changed, excpect the other side to obstruct everything. Unless Ds start to play hardball, precisely the way Rs did when they kept the Medicare Part D vote for 6 hours, don't expect anything to get passed. I suggest a long series of votes in the Senate that all Rs will vote No, met with a press conferenceafter each vote labeling them as Obstructionists and demanding an Up or Down vote. Again unless Ds start to play hardball they will get nothing passed. They should actually start with a series of economic proposals that Rs will reject and then use that to prove to voters that Rs are devoid of all ideas other than Obstructionism. Political Gridlock is precsiely what has destroyed California.

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

leichtman:

I was a lawyer (retired now), but I was simply quoting the CONGRESSMAN. From now on, I invoke my right to ignore you. Have a nice life.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Jake you claim to be a lawyer, apparently not very well versed, yet you are unaware that the Miranda decision deals with custodial interrogations only. Tell me that you knew that, right and you were aware that the Sahilis were not in custody. Perhaps you need a refresher course in introduction to Criminal Law. More likely just another excuse for you to demagogue.

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Those are good points too (of course, some libs here actually think that you and I are the SAME PERSON, so how are we going to convince anyone like that ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD


I don't buy the "window theory" - if a government policy is good, it should be good anytime, including a week before an election.

If these guys are running scared, and they don't want to pass a piece of legislation close to an election, they shouldn't be passing it.


These guys are a bunch of jokers - AND this is just the stuff we know about - do you realize how much stuff gets through that we never hear about? All those earmarks Millions and Billions of dollars.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

JakeD


Very good point on the "right to remain silent"


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Since the libs are in hiding (I'm not complaining, really) what did you think about Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) telling the alleged White House gate-crashers, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, today that "I do not respect your right [to remain silent], not at all"? Yet the Dems "respect the right" to remain silent for enemy combatant, non-citizen TERRORISTS? What a crazy, mixed-up world we live in.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

37th:

To be fair, the Dems really only had last year (with midterms this year) to pass anything remotely controversial -- there is usually only a small window of opportunity for a new President -- keep in mind that GWB pushed his tax cuts the first year too (before 9/11 transformed his presidency).

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama way overreached on his agenda.


The problem Obama really has is he never "took care of business" with the economy and national security.

If Obama had prioritized the economy and national security - and then hit this health care debacle - it wouldn't have been so bad.

However, Obama's judgement is off -


Obama actually went before Congress in September and basically said that he was going to put the economy aside and concentrate on health care.

Obama has to come to the realization that the American people do not want his version of the health care plan - the idea that health care is the path for him is simply wrong.


And don't forget terrorism was an issue.

The terrorism issue was large on voters' minds - and Obama has only himself to blame for that - by being soft on terrorism and insisting on staying on the golf course after a bomb was found on a plane.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

markandbeth92 (your "proposed" amendment allows CURRENT Congressmen, and those elected up through ratification, to stay as long as they want, but would not change the two / six year terms):

No person shall be elected to the office of Senator or Representative more than twice, and no person who has held the office of Senator or Representative, or acted as Senator or Representative, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected Senator or Representative shall be elected to the office of the Senator or Representative more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Senator or Representative when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of Senator or Representative, or acting as Senator or Representative, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of Senator or Representative or acting as Senator or Representative during the remainder of such term.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Why do I feel that it's sort of a win for Joe Lieberman? He can give the Democrats a sympathy vote if and when a final HCR bill is returned to the Senate, and his kindred Republicans (with Brown seated) still will have enough votes to allow them to filbuster

Posted by: TomCamfield | January 20, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Brown is a wolf in a sheep clothing because he actually voted for healthcare in MA and want health care to be on the drawing board to make it better. He will be in a rude awakening when Mitch O'Connell tells him where he sits in the Senate (on the lowest pecking order.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 20, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

It seems like Obama is sort of throwing everything out there to explain away losing in Massachusetts.


Obama was saying he didn't communicate that well, that he lost touch with the American people - even saying the problems are 8 years old - basically blaming Bush.

Obama needs to change. LOL Doesn't really seem like he is going to do that.


Looks like Obama wants to still jam health care down everyone's throat.

Obama is actually lucky that he has between now and November to change, to drop the health care plan - not like Clinton who lost Congress when he wasn't expecting it and never recovered.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse


There are no winners, only suckers...those who believed in Obama and the Democrats, and those who believe that Republicans would do a better job.

The venality of our elected representatives
is spread across the spectrum. They are all on the take. For ordinary Americans it will not amount to a can of beans. They will continue to be exploited by the politicians.

Posted by: probashi | January 20, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Bobbywc.... I agree with you whole hog. The American people were the biggest winners last night. Now, if we could just get enough new people in both houses that will pass a Constitutional Amendment to term limit congress we will have taken a huge step back towards a Constitutional congress. One that represents the people and are not beholding to the donators.

I believe that two 4 year terms for both the house and senate is enough. We only entrust a President with 8 years of power for a reasion.... so there will never be a "Kind George" in America... We the people are always to be in control.

Limit both the Senate and House to 2 four year terms. It would be the easiest amendment ever written, just copy the 22nd amendment word for word but take out the word "President" and replace it with the words "house or senate". Done.

Posted by: markandbeth92 | January 20, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse


There are no winners, only suckers...those who believed in Obama and the Democrats, and those who believe that Republicans would do a better job.

The venality of our elected representatives
is spread across the spectrum. They are all on the take. For ordinary Americans it will not amount to a can of beans. They will continue to be exploited by the politicians.

Posted by: probashi | January 20, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness Scott Brown didn't have to get 60% of the vote in Massachusetts to get elected...

Posted by: srb2 | January 20, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Scott Brown won the election with 53% of the vote in a state that is just 13% registered Republicans.

That means 40% of the electorate who are NOT REPUBLICANS elected Scott Brown. That figure must include many tens of thousands of Democrat voters who crossed party lines to vote for Senator Brown.

Posted by: screwjob11 | January 20, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

For President Obama the message is clear.

The base stayed home.

Posted by: Maddogg | January 20, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I am a member of the far left - for me the winner last night is the American people - our democracy is alive and well. Every elected official should take note - no one is safe and no party is guaranteed control -Thomas Jefferson said it best.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

Enough people in Mass rejected the role of lemming and used their own minds to decide what is best for Mass and America -

Our Democray is the biggest winner.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | January 20, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The message of the election is clear.

The voters demand lower taxes and higher health care costs.

The results are also a grand ""opportunity"" for Obama to lead and not squirm away from battle.

Posted by: Maddogg | January 20, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Massachusetts!

Posted by: wmpowellfan | January 20, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

The false right-left paradigm is alive and well on the blogs and in the analysis of repeaters for the mass media. Brown's rise in Massachusetts is a metaphor for the United States, as this nation in decline continues its march toward fascism. The cycle repeats with yet another minion of the international banking cartel and military-industrial complex masquerading as a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Reaganesque victory has less to do with Brown’s politics, with which many of his supporters apparently disagree. It has more to do with style and rhetoric. Aristocratic democracy did not deliver enough of its promises, including universal health care. Representative democracy in form has given way to oligarchy in practice; for, the corporations have merged with the state and seized control of the political process to serve their own interests. According to Mussolini, this is the essence of fascism.

Posted by: Aurellano | January 20, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

its interesting mark that conservatives here all wanted to end the exemption of HC to antitrust laws and then backed away when Ds actually put it in their legislation. That should be the absolute beginning of any serious HC reform to try and end the abuses by the HC industry.

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

A vote for racial harmony is not a vote for massive government programs and higher taxes.


The democrats sought to fool the American people.


And they only ended up fooling themselves.

The democrats who today are making statements that they still want to jam health care through are simply continuing fooling themselves.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Attention Dims hacks and other nitwits:

The filibuster rule is part of Senate rules. The Senate makes its own rules.

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5 states: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

What part of "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" do you not understand?

The Constitution is SILENT on what those rules are, and it is vocal that the Senate makes its own rules.

Posted by: screwjob11 | January 20, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

America is the big winner here. Were not going to be subjected to a horrible government ran healthcare system. The government cannot run a business, much less America's healthcare system. It is a sad day if that were to happen. Jim Webb of Virginia has now said he will not vote for healthcare until Sen. Brown is seated in the Senate. Well, that effectively kills both the Senate & House healthcare bills. That means, if Obama wants to focus on healthcare instead of the economy this year, Republican's get a seat at the table to draft this bill. Democrats must compromise to get this passed. If Obama is true to his campaign promises, he will work with Republicans to bring everyone together to help the economy & work with Republicans to get a good sensible healthcare bill passed that will help Americans. We will now see if Obama is serious about what he says, or will he go down the lonely & unproductive path of appeasing the liberal base.

Posted by: reason5 | January 20, 2010 4:22 PM

I am just not sure either side wants to compromise. To truly govern effectively in our democratic form of government you need to compromise.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | January 20, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I am curious about the various ideas of what constitutes health care reform. I know what shrink and Jake think. I believe I know what Street Corner thinks. What does ArlingtonHokie, for example, think constitutes reform?

I have no clue as to what voters actually want because BHO campaigned on UHC and won on it and now it is unpopular. Shrink has made a case against the House and Senate bills as a medical doctor and from the perspective of someone who would like health care reform.

So what constitutes reform, and do we need it?

I will offer that we do need it, but I have written here so much about it that to say any more would abuse my welcome.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 20, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

BULLETIN: THIS WAS NOT A REFERENDUM ON HEALTH CARE REFORM.
BLAME LOCAL MASS. DEMS: DIDN'T THEY KNOW COAKLEY WAS A DUD?

All the MA Dems had to do was run a Kennedy, either of Teddy's sons, or Joe, and this seat would have stayed blue. This dynasty deserved to be preserved, and the locals should have known they were getting an aloof, elitist, politically inept candidate in Martha Coakley. Who was running the inside game on the selection process? That's where the finger-pointing should start.

***

OBAMA FIRST YEAR FAILURE: FAITH IN GOV'T, RULE OF LAW UNRESTORED.

• When Will Team Obama Take Down the Nationwide Extrajudicial Gestapo Run by Bush-Cheney "Leave-Behinds?"

• Now It's Obama's "Gestapo USA." And it's targeting his presidency along with thousands of unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans and their families.

See: Poynter.org (Journalism Groups -- Reporting):

• "U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves"
• "Gestapo USA: Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"
• "U.S. Uses CBS News to Cover Up Microwave Cell Tower Torture?"

http://www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 OR:
http://NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 20, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It is mostly Obama's fault. I remmember with disgust when he told progressive groups such as move on to back off pressuring the few conservatives Democrats in the senate unwilling to go along with the majority's will . He said it was unhelpful. Well sir we backed off and you lost and in the process you killed our dreams.
You can have 100 % in Congress and you can't still pass anything progressive because you are not progressive you are a corporatist president and we should have noticed it when you were a just another corrupted by big business senator.

Posted by: bluelagoon21 | January 20, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

horrible run govt HC??? so you want to end Medicare.

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, made the Senate an assembly where the States would have equal representation. Each State Legislature would elect two senators to 6-year terms. Late in the 19th century, some State Legislatures deadlocked over the election of a senator when different parties controlled different houses, and Senate vacancies could last months or years. In other cases, special interests or political machines gained control over the state legislature. Reformers dismissed individuals elected by such legislatures as puppets and the Senate as a "millionaire’s club" serving powerful private interests.

One response to these concerns was the "Oregon system," which utilized a State primary election to identify the voters’ choice for Senator while pledging all candidates for the State Legislature to honor the primary’s result. Over half of the States adopted the "Oregon system," but the 1912 Senate investigation of bribery and corruption in the election of Illinois Senator William Lorimer reached the conclusion that only a Constitutional Amendment mandating the direct election of Senators by a State’s citizenry would allay public demands for reform.

When the House passed proposed amendments for the direct election of Senators in 1910 and 1911, they unfortunately included a "race rider" meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters. This would be done by vesting complete control of Senate elections in state governments. A substitute amendment by Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas provided for the direct election of Senators without the "race rider." That version was adopted by the Senate on a close vote before the proposed Constitutional Amendment itself passed the Senate. Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and on April 8, 1913, enough States had ratified the resolution to become our 17th Amendment.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=58

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

VirginianforFreedom:

Yes, thank those Founding Fathers but also the authors of the 17th Amendment which changed the election of Senators to direct vote (rather than the MA State Legislature, of which Senator-Elect Brown is only one of five members ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Boston Globe a winner? Those goofballs gave Coakley a 15 point lead five days before the election. Never trust the main stream press.

Posted by: sportsfan2 | January 20, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, JRM2, Senator-Elect may just be trying to act nice (he's the one who campaigned on being the 41st Senator in order to stop Obamacare), and the exit poll shows that was the number one issue for the voters. In addition, CNN.com Quick Vote:

The Senate race in Massachusetts: A referendum on health care reform?

Yes 68% (199,964 votes)

No 32% (93,992 votes) THOSE LIKE YOU IN DENIAL

Total votes: 293,956

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The biggest winners are our Founding Fathers for having the foresight and the brilliance to devise the system of checks and balances in our Constitution.

As Alexander Hamilton and James Madison explained in Federalist Paper #51, the Founders set up the system of checks and balances:
--to control the potential abuses of government
--to enable our government to control itself
--to guard our society against the oppression of our rulers
--to enable the individual branches of government to keep the other branches in their proper places

Thank you, Founding Fathers. You win again. Your system works.

Posted by: VirginianforFreedom | January 20, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

America is the big winner here. Were not going to be subjected to a horrible government ran healthcare system. The government cannot run a business, much less America's healthcare system. It is a sad day if that were to happen. Jim Webb of Virginia has now said he will not vote for healthcare until Sen. Brown is seated in the Senate. Well, that effectively kills both the Senate & House healthcare bills. That means, if Obama wants to focus on healthcare instead of the economy this year, Republican's get a seat at the table to draft this bill. Democrats must compromise to get this passed. If Obama is true to his campaign promises, he will work with Republicans to bring everyone together to help the economy & work with Republicans to get a good sensible healthcare bill passed that will help Americans. We will now see if Obama is serious about what he says, or will he go down the lonely & unproductive path of appeasing the liberal base.

Posted by: reason5 | January 20, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

logcabin 1836 summarized it perfectly. Mass. voters just spat on Teddy's grave and defiled his life's work. That is the end of any meaningful HC reform in my lifetime. Good Luck Rs in bankruptcy court next time you or your family have a serious HC crisis. Its time now for serious Senate business, figuring out how to get Curt Schilling his tax cut. Until one party has the cajones to change the filibuster rule and end this nonsense where 41 Obstructionist Senators can thwart the will of the US Senate on every piece of legislation, then we will have permanent Gridlock, California style. Lets see how that works out the next time this country faces another AIG type economic meltdown.
The winner: revival of the UP OR DOWN VOTE.

Posted by: leichtman | January 20, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

The election results are clear.

The voters have said they hate bankers that mess with them, and love health insurers & drug companies that mess with them.

Let us go forth from this time and place to lead the land we love, knowing we have a clear cut message.

Amen!

Posted by: Maddogg | January 20, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

the dem/pubs love these comments pro/con for their agendas. take control citizens and hold these people responsive to what YOU consider is right for the country and not what ur employees want for themselves

Posted by: pofinpa | January 20, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

If the House doesn't pass the Senate bill as is, then negotiations will have to be restarted in order to peel off another Senator. As there's no public option, some of the holdouts could be convinced to switch over. Collins and Snowe jump to the top of the list. Second tier might be Voinovich and Gregg, both of whom are retiring. And Brown has said he would not vote for the current bill, but he might be willing to do so with a little tweaking. Remember, he's someone the teabaggers will label a RINO after a few months.

I don't think this thing is dead.

Posted by: DDAWD
------------------------------------------
Voters are sick and tired of a terrible year of big spending and big deficits — especially the sight of Obama and his congressional allies almost daily talking breezily about spending what we do not have.

Voters went for the hope-and-change Obama in part because he promised fiscal sobriety after the Bush $500 billion deficit. Instead, in utterly cynical fashion, Obama trumped that red ink four times over. In the process, he developed a terrible habit of promising favored constituencies a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there as if it were all paper money — rather than real borrowed currency that will have to be confiscated in the future from the beleaguered taxpayer. It only makes it worse that the more the administration borrowed, printed, and spent, the higher unemployment rose and the lower economic activity plummeted.

Most have had enough of pie-in-the-sky talk of massive new healthcare entitlements, cap-and-trade taxes and regulation, more stimulus, and more takeovers of private enterprise. The country is broke and the people want to pay off, not incur more, crushing debt. What got us into the mess was too much borrowing, skyrocketing debt, and reckless spending — not too many balanced budgets and too much lean government.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

It is instructive to know that even high-minded (self-styled) liberal Democrats are often guided to doing the right things by attending to votes that will keep them in office. But they keep at the fiction that the well-being of "the people" comes first with them.

Posted by: mhr614 | January 20, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Scott Brown said today that the election was not a referendum on Obama but a backlash against the Bank and Wall-Street favoritism by the current administration and congress.

I agree with him, politicians had better work for the people or they will get voted out. It's pretty simple.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 20, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

This is great, now we have a "true" socialist in the Republican party. He voted for universal Health Care in Mass. so that must mean he thinks it would be good for the rest of the country.

Hey, he also was pro-choice until "recently"

Posted by: JRM2 | January 20, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

kablooey


I just saw that too - have the House pass the Senate bill - and then settle the budgetary differences through reconciliation.


Obama could try that - but it would be a disaster.

The American people do not want the health care bill. The bluest of the blue States has agreed. If Nancy wants to lose 100 seats in November, I guess she could go for it.

However, I'm not sure the democrats in her party want to risk their seats on this suicide mission.


And that is what it is A SUICIDE MISSION.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"I don't want the government having anything to do with my health!

Posted by: georges2"
---
Glad to hear you'll be opting out of medicare.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 20, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Brown will be running in 2012 at the same time Obama's running for re-election. I'm thinking Scott will find some issues on which he can work with the WH, because he doesn't want to be one and done, which he will be if he comes across as a GOP stooge. Party loyalty is one thing, but no one enforces party discipline at the cost of electoral suicide.

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 20, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Other obvious losers (at least to those of us in Mass) - the prominent Bay State Republicans, including former Romney Lt. Gov. Kerry Healy and millionaire convenience store baron and perpetual gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos (both of whom were seen on New England Cable News last night with wistful looks on their faces - "why did I say no when they asked me to run?"), Charlie Baker, presumptive Republican candidate for Governor, and others less prominent. Offer yourself up as the sacrificial lamb to increase your chances of winning future state-wide office, and look what happens! Talk about being in the right place at the right time! Palin-Brown in 2012! Give me a break ....

Posted by: JoeFree | January 20, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I knew that an interesting discussion blog couldn't last. Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted. Maybe after November, they will BOTH stay away permanently.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama failed to get the democrats together all year long. It is that simple.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

*** The Only Realistic Route to Health Care Reform ? ***

(1) Settle differences between house and senate bills in writing, i.e. a bill that will go through reconciliation. All major players vow to vote on that bill in a joint press conference.

(2) House now votes on the senate bill, which they know will be amended to their satisfaction.

(3) Both chambers vote on the amending bill.

(4) Obama signs the senate bill then the amending bill.

(5) Health care at last!

Posted by: kablooey | January 20, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Paul Kirk you rat-bastard: Vacate Senator Browns seat immediately, you vile impostor.

Posted by: screwjob11 | January 20, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Brown's a good candidate. He comes off as a nice guy -- Reagan's personality helped him about as much as his policies, maybe more so. I think he'd have come off as more appealing than Sarah Palin at the bottom of the ticket. But you still need the right person at the top, and if the GOP goes wingnut, they'll lose. And the GOP has shown little patience with Repubs who don't drink the pro-life kool-aid. Dems take heart -- just like hubris made you think any Dem could beat any Repub (oops), the GOP will likely return the favor.

MA GOP has long since learned that right-wing kook politics don't sell in the Bay State. The most conservative statewide elected official in the last 60 years was probably Gov. Ed King, a Democrat (at least while he was governor).

And no one associated with the Dems won last night. Patrick was already in the toilet. The WH was a big loser. Obama showed up, and his candidate got (deservedly) trounced. (Barack, I love you, but the crack about the truck fell very flat.) Seriously, only Creigh Deeds makes her look good. Dems have no bench?

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 20, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

On his radio show today, Fox News host Glenn Beck attacked Scott Brown for an awkward joke he made during his acceptance speech last night. After introducing his daughters to the crowd, Brown said “just in case anybody throughout the country” was wondering, “yes, they’re both available.” Beck was outraged by Brown’s comments, implying that the new Republican senator may be a sexual predator capable of killing young women:

BECK: I want a chastity belt on this man, I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy. No, I’m just telling you. … This one could end with a dead intern. This one could end with a dead intern.

COHOST: Dead intern? I’m not sure I’d go that far.

BECK: I’m just saying it could end with a dead intern. … I’m just saying: Congratulations, now let’s monitor him. Let’s put an ankle bracelet on him. Let’s just know where he is at all times.'


Yesterday on his TV show, Beck conceded, “I don’t trust Scott Brown.” He explained his wariness: “[Brown] posed naked in Cosmopolitan magazine back in 1982. I mean — really? I question the judgment of man who thinks anyone wants to see the his body naked:" "


Posted by: drindl | January 20, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Winner: The American People

Maybe some members of congress will remember that they are in Washington to represent people, not their party.

Posted by: postfan1 | January 20, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a big loser. Now he's the 59th Senator instead of the 60th, and his position as the deciding vote has been pulled out from under him.

Posted by: simpleton1 | January 20, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"I know a liberal in Mass who voted for Brown over Coakley because she was such a B.A.D. candidate.

He doesn't like Brown, but he disliked Coakley even more. So revel in it as if it is a referendum on Obama. We won't know until 2010 at the earliest really.

In the meantime I'd like to see Congress strap on a pair and pass something worthwhile for our busted health care system. Preferably not the Senate bill word for word.

Posted by: theobserver4"

I would think that if this was a referendum on Obama, then Brown would have been leading in the polls right from the start. Instead, Brown had to play catchup. Nothing Obama did over the past two weeks would have propelled that.

If the House doesn't pass the Senate bill as is, then negotiations will have to be restarted in order to peel off another Senator. As there's no public option, some of the holdouts could be convinced to switch over. Collins and Snowe jump to the top of the list. Second tier might be Voinovich and Gregg, both of whom are retiring. And Brown has said he would not vote for the current bill, but he might be willing to do so with a little tweaking. Remember, he's someone the teabaggers will label a RINO after a few months.

I don't think this thing is dead.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 20, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I have an idea. Let the people who want Obamacare pay for it. Let the people who prefer their current and BETTER plans opt out. I don't want the government having anything to do with my health!

Posted by: georges2 | January 20, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The true winners in this election was the VOTERS. Finally thier voice was heard. Most voters, whether Republican, Democrat or Indipendent were extremely unhappy with the current party and their apathy towards the voters. The fact that they were ramrodding a bill down thier throats without any input from the other party or listening to the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE should have been a warning sign. Had the Democrats acted in a proper manner without bribery, corruption and colusion in office using an open venue as they had promised this might not have happened. As it was the democrats acted like they were kings and would rule from on high. The people beleived the hype and reteric that Obama and the Dems preached. They did not look beyond his words to see he did not have any plan as to how to accomplish his dream of socialism. After 8 years of curssing and brating President Bush they had a hatred that was unreasonable and clouded thier judgement plus the hype of the Rock Star blinded them to common sense. Now the coutnry is having to pay for thier folly and lack of mental insight. But the Voters are waking up and in pure revolt at this point in time.

Posted by: jmsmaxwell | January 20, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

At least we got this much out of him "Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," Obama said. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

LOL, the brain dead leftists are out in force trying to defend the steaming pile of garbage they call "reform". A tenth of a brain would tell you that this has nothing to do with reform. But that's too much to ask of the leftists

Posted by: ArlingtonHokie | January 20, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

continental46:

I never said it was "free" or that it was anything more than to stabilize the patient and treat "as presented". If you read the post I was responding to, logcabin1836 made the FALSE statement about "losers" being 48 million working poor who have no healthcare. Would you agree with me that even those 48 million (assuming they are all poor, they qualify for Medicaid too) can get treatment. There's 35 States that offer some kind of assistance, too. Or, they could all just move to Massachusetts ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

HILARIOUS


OBAMA IS BLAMING BUSH FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS RACE

OBAMA HAS GOT TO BE KIDDING

DOES ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND STILL THING OBAMA IS FIT TO GOVERN ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

you're absolutely spot on about this ddawd:

"The main stream press. They have been able to drive the discussion in favor of the Republicans. Whether it be promoting the Tea Parties, perpetuating the myth that the Iraq War has been run at a cost of zero dollars, or the idea that the health care bill will lead to the creation of death panels, or perpetuating the myth that the public option is unpopular. It shows how far behind the alternative media is when mainstream speaks with such a unified voice. They definitely won this one."

I've never seen any group that the MSM groveled to, and glorified as much as the loony teabaggers. And they wonder why nobody reads their crap anymore.

Posted by: drindl | January 20, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

theobserver4:

In case you haven't noticed (ironic, given your log-in name), it IS 2010. In other news, Obama warned Democrats in Congress today not to "jam" a health care reform bill through now that they've lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for Massachusetts Republican Senator-Elect Scott Brown to be sworn into office.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Like everyone who imagines there is unlimited free health care to be had by going to an emergency room, you don't understand the law in this area. The law requires care ONLY of health problems that are "emergent" and only that amount of care necessary to make the patient's condition "stable." You can't get an organ transplant, chemotherapy for cancer, or treatment for any chronic (but serious) health problem in an emergency room.

Furthermore, the care the law requires isn't free. The hospital can bill the patient at its standard rates and sue to collect if it is not paid. Got it?

Posted by: continental46@aol.com | January 20, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Right. You can get cancer treatment in an emergency room, you can get regular treatment for chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension -- and the added plus is emergency rooms are astronomically expensive at delivering care.

The most idiotic republican argument of all.

Posted by: drindl"

And proof positive that Republicans have no interest in deficit control.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 20, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

And Chris you missed the biggest winner and the guy that got Brown elected, Mitt Romney.
Posted by: allenridge
____
I agree. Romney was a big supporter of Brown and the first guy (besides family) he thanked election night. Brown winning can only help Romney in 2012.

Posted by: sovine08 | January 20, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I know a liberal in Mass who voted for Brown over Coakley because she was such a B.A.D. candidate.

He doesn't like Brown, but he disliked Coakley even more. So revel in it as if it is a referendum on Obama. We won't know until 2010 at the earliest really.

In the meantime I'd like to see Congress strap on a pair and pass something worthwhile for our busted health care system. Preferably not the Senate bill word for word.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The Globe - a winner? Get real - the Globe was so far in the tank for Coakley it was downright embarrassing. Its coverage was slanted; its polls were always way more positive for her than even her own polls; and it trumpeted its whacky polls when everybody else knew that they were way, way off.
Hey, it's a good paper; I read it when I'm in that area, but it went lock, stock and two smoking barrels for Martha and embarrassed the heck out of itself.

Posted by: ArmyBrat1 | January 20, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Right. You can get cancer treatment in an emergency room, you can get regular treatment for chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension -- and the added plus is emergency rooms are astronomically expensive at delivering care.

The most idiotic republican argument of all.

Posted by: drindl | January 20, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

logcabin1836:

By law, any citizen (or even illegal alien) who presents at an emergency room must be treated regardless of insurance or ability to pay.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The real losers are the estimated 48 million working poor who have no healthcare. The Massachusetts electorate should congratulate themselves for single handedly destroying the life's work of the late Teddy Kennedy and the hopes of millions who could have benefited from healthcare reform. The "Have Mine, S*crew You" mentality has finally won. Congratulations!

Posted by: logcabin1836 | January 20, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

The democrats gave into special interest union lobbyists over the American people. The Labor Love Loot was the straw that broke the camel's back. The democrats kept swearing health care reform was awesome for the American People, but kept exempting their political donors.

Check the Polls! Only 11% of the public agrees with the union exemption.

Voters really frown on that action. Only 27% support the excise tax if it exempts union members, while 70% are opposed. But even more significantly, if the union members are exempt 11% Strongly Support the tax while 51% Strongly Oppose it.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | January 20, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to the people of Massachusetts for electing a fine young U. S. senator.

The election makes me even more ashamed of our corrupt and incompetent Illinois Senators: Dick Durbin and Roland Burris.

Posted by: Jerzy | January 20, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

"2 of the 3 are bankrupt or nearing that state. Filibustering healthcare would be, well like, filibustering against future financial failure. That word would be "Admirable"."

--------------------------

Worried about the potential bankrupcy of Social Security and Medicare?

Answer: Raise the Taxes? Problem solved.

Medicare only cost 1.45% of your annual income. Plus another 1.45% that is matched by your employer.

That's nothing; especially compared to what Private Insurance charges.

So Raise the tax, maybe to 1.95... hell let's just say raise it to an even 2%... and bankruptcy won't be a concern.

"WHAT'S NEXT!"

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | January 20, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

"2 of the 3 are bankrupt or nearing that state. Filibustering healthcare would be, well like, filibustering against future financial failure. That word would be "Admirable"."

--------------------------

Worried about the potential bankrupcy of Social Security and Medicare?

Answer: Raise the Taxes? Problem solved.

Medicare only cost 1.45% of your annual income. Plus another 1.45% that is matched by your employer.

That's nothing; especially compared to what Private Insurance charges.

So Raise the tax, maybe to 1.95... hell let's just say raise it to an even 2%... and bankruptcy won't be a concern.

"WHAT'S NEXT!"

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | January 20, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

leapin:

"2 of the 3 are bankrupt or nearing that state. Filibustering healthcare would be, well like, filibustering against future financial failure. That word would be "Admirable"."

--------------------------

Worried about the potential bankrupcy of Social Security and Medicare?

Answer: Raise the Taxes? Problem solved.

Medicare only cost 1.45% of your annual income. Plus another 1.45% that is matched by your employer.

That's nothing; especially compared to what Private Insurance charges.

So Raise the tax, maybe to 1.95... hell let's just say raise it to an even 2%... and bankruptcy won't be a concern.

"WHAT'S NEXT!"

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | January 20, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris seems to be one of the liberal pundits who is reluctant to say anything negative about Obama. Clearly, at least temporarily, one of the biggest losers was Obama. The American people will be the biggest losers if there is no health care bill during his presidency.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | January 20, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"Wow ! now we're acting like a NAZI...... censor away koolkat.........censor away....

Act like a fascist, koolkat, and you will get called one."

Stop your bleating, numbnutz. I don't have any power to keep you off this board. Do you consider anyone who uses the "Report Abuse" button to be a nazi or a fascist?

You're a pathetic piece of garbage for throwing around such terms so loosely.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Back on the actual topic (from CNN.com):

Among the options under consideration is having the House pass an identical version of the bill approved by the Senate in December. Doing so would allow the measure to proceed straight to Obama's desk to be signed into law.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Wednesday it "remains to be seen" whether there's enough support in the House for such a course of action.

"There's a lot of good things in the Senate bill," she said. "As you know, 85 percent of the bills are the same."

Pelosi argued "the message from Massachusetts" was that voters are angry about special state-specific provisions added to the Senate bill in order to win over wavering Democrats. She specifically cited a provision exempting Nebraska from the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage - a provision critics have labeled "the Cornhusker kickback."

"Some of those issues are lightning-rod issues and some of that has to be changed," Pelosi said. "I don't think our members should be asked to support something that even Sen. (Ben) Nelson" - the Nebraska Democrat who initially pushed for the provision - "has backed away from."

A number of House liberals, however, are pushing back hard against the idea of adopting the Senate plan without major changes. The more conservative Senate measure contains a number of provisions unpopular with progressives, including a 40 percent tax on insurance companies providing high-end "Cadillac" health plans.

"If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we're going to end up with nothing," Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Massachusetts, said Tuesday. "I don't hear a lot of support on our side."

Several other Democrats echoed Lynch's concerns, telling CNN that even if there was a firm commitment to follow approval of the Senate version with a second bill containing changes negotiated by House and Senate leaders and the White House, they wouldn't vote yes.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me Mitt Romney should be included in the winners list. Romney went around the state endorsing Brown. He was the first person Brown thanked on election night.. And I think he and Brown both now will be seen as guys who can win independant vote.. Brown will not run for Pres in 2012.. but Romney will and Senator Brown will pay Romney back. Brown winning is a big win for Romney as well...

Posted by: sovine08 | January 20, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"Western Massachusetts does not fit that pattern - it is more blue the whole way through.


Southern Massachusetts, including the cape, is more red."

I'm not sure about this.

Western Mass has always been slightly more Republican than the state as a whole. The last GOP congressman from Mass, Silvio Conte, represented Western Mass.

Also, there's really no such thing as "Southern Mass." The South Shore (Norfolk and Plymouth Counties) is fairly conservative, but also includes very Democratic Brockton. Bristol County is very Democratic (Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton). This area is commonly known as Southeastern Mass. The Cape and Islands are more Republican, but in a very Massachusetts kind of way (Gerry Studds, anyone?).

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Is Cloture Constitutional?

No where in the Constitution does it mention Cloture or the filibuster.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4 states:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

The only active power or roll the Constitution grants the Vice President is that he can be the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

However, the current use of the filibuster by Republicans makes it impossible to ever have a Senate Vote that is "Equally Divided". Therefore, Republicans' use of the filibuster has stripped the Vice President of ever being able to exercise his one true Constitutional power as the Vice President.

Requiring a Super Majority to conduct any and all business in the Senate, is a de facto and perhaps unconstitutional breach against the power and role of the Office of the Vice President.

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | January 20, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

It would be like filibustering: Social Security, Medicare, or Civil Rights.

History will have the final word, and that word will be "Shameful."

Posted by: mcgrupp10799
------------------------------------------
2 of the 3 are bankrupt or nearing that state. Filibustering healthcare would be, well like, filibustering against future financial failure. That word would be "Admirable".

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Losers: Ears the democrats still are not using them.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Winner: Mitch McConnell. He has been dead set on preventing the Senate from getting anything accomplished and this strategy seems to be working. He prevented the passage of a good stimulus package, prevented the passage of the health care bill, and has led obstruction in just about any measure. As a result, people just see more gridlock in DC and will take it out on the party in power.

The main stream press. They have been able to drive the discussion in favor of the Republicans. Whether it be promoting the Tea Parties, perpetuating the myth that the Iraq War has been run at a cost of zero dollars, or the idea that the health care bill will lead to the creation of death panels, or perpetuating the myth that the public option is unpopular. It shows how far behind the alternative media is when mainstream speaks with such a unified voice. They definitely won this one.

Loser - Obama - while his return to the ballot in 2012 will certainly lead to the knockout of whoever the Republican nominee is (if Brown is smart, he would use his popularity to try and springboard to a higher office), it seems like yet another instance where his personal popularity has not produced electoral success for others when he is not on the ballot. Furthermore, this hampers his agenda as a Democratic legislature which has been loathe to provide him with an iota of political cover will be even less likely to do so. Obama is one of the few members of his party with anything in the way of intestinal fortitude and this will become apparent.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Here’s something that seriously complicates the argument that yesterday’s vote in Massachusetts was a massive repudiation of Obama’s overall policies and agenda.

A GOP pollster conducted an exit poll of 800 Massachusetts voters yesterday — and 38% said their vote was grounded in opposition to Obama’s policies and the direction he’s taking the country.

The exit poll by Tony Fabrizio has already gotten some attention this morning because it found that Brown’s opposition to Congressional health care legislation was the most important issue driving the pro-Brown vote. And that finding does suggest health care was a major factor.

But dig a bit deeper into the poll itself, and it gets more interesting.

When voters were asked if their vote was motivated by Obama’s overall policies and the direction he’s taking the country, only 38% said they were motivated by opposition. Meanwhile, 32% said they were motivated by support, and another 27% said his policies were not a factor — a total of 59% who were either for Obama’s policies or indifferent.

Meanwhile, 44% of independents said they were motivated by opposition to Obama’s overall policies, an uncomfortable number, to be sure, but smaller than the 53% of indys who either supported his policies or were indifferent to them.

One other interesting tidbit: The poll also found Obama’s job approval running at 55%, and 48% among independents, versus 47% who disapprove.

Posted by: drindl | January 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The late Senator Wellstone rode around MN in an old bus. Senator Feingold kicked off his first bid for the senate by painting a list of his values on his garage door. While rare, there are Democrats who know how to run a populist campaign. Unfortunately, it is not something that can really be faked.

To add to the winners list: that guy who lost the Virginia gubernatorial race. He no longer owns the title of worst political campaigner ever.

To add to the losers list: Arlen Specter. Granted he would still be targeted in a primary as not being right enough, but to jump ship and then have the new ship spring a leak.

Posted by: caribis | January 20, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

You're welcome (to be fair, the Boston/Cambridge/Somerville area DID deliver the most total votes for Coakley by far).

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

JakeD


Don't listen to that guy -


He has no idea what he is talking about


The suburbs went for Brown - the cities went for Coakley -


Which is suspicious only in that the cities should have gone more heavily for Coakley - so the democrats probably decided to stab her in the back when they sensed she was in trouble.


Western Massachusetts does not fit that pattern - it is more blue the whole way through.


Southern Massachusetts, including the cape, is more red.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Make Republicans Filibuster Healthcare Reform. Roll out the Cots! Make the Republicans hold the floor as long as their legs can stand.

Then once they've said everything on their mind. We can hold a vote and pass healthcare.

Democrats acting as if they need 60 votes is a farce. The last time the Senate had a Super-Majority was in the 1970s. This ruse that the Senate requires 60 votes to do anything implies that nothing has passed through the enate in over three decades.

The Republicans only had 55 Senators under Bush the Lesser's reign. And he got whatever he wanted through the Senate.

So make Republicans filibuster Healthcare Reform. Then ten, twenty years from now people will look back in disbelief that anyone tried to filibuster Healthcare reform... It would be like filibustering: Social Security, Medicare, or Civil Rights.

History will have the final word, and that word will be "Shameful."

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | January 20, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

CC - How Obama did not make the loser list is beyond me. His personal appeal on behalf of Coakley in particular and progressiveness in general failed to translate into anything. This failure and Brown's win led to putting his signature policy, healthcare - at the moment the very essence of what defines him, on life support, if not in the morgue. I'd love to hear your rationale for why Obama is not listed in the loser category.

Posted by: amaranthpa | January 20, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Allow me to quote:

"Sounds to me like good old election fraud. I'm sure it was 'close' but common, rural areas that hand counted paper ballots went to Coakley but urban centers counting on electronic machines went for Brown? I can't trust results like that . . ."

Posted by: insanelycool | January 20, 2010 1:40 PM

I think your confusion stems from the mistaken position that ANY "urban centers . . . went for Brown". Unless you stated that on purpose.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"...and a multitude of elected Democrats who are now going to be scared of their own shadows."

This is the story. Thanks, CC.

And thanks to JakeD for linking to the election results in MA. They are interesting. Boston is NOT the dominant area some posters here believed, in terms of demographics.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 20, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

insanelycool:

I didn't "cherry-pick" anything. I gave you the actual vote totals for the TOP "urban centers" (they all went for Coakley regardless of hand or machine count). Are you arguing that those "urban centers" should have gone for Brown instead?

P.S. to nmg3rln ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

CC: A poster named allenridge has been posting the same off-topic crap over and over. That constitutes spam. Please ban him from the Fix.

Thanks very much.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:31 PM
=========================

Wow ! now we're acting like a NAZI...... censor away koolkat.........censor away....

Act like a fascist, koolkat, and you will get called one.

Posted by: allenridge | January 20, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

CC: A poster named allenridge has been posting the same off-topic crap over and over. That constitutes spam. Please ban him from the Fix.

Thanks very much.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Congratulations to independents, democrats, and republicans from the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the stunning victory by Senator elect Josh Brown. To quote a well known pastor from Chicago, " Hallejulah, brothers and sisters, hallejulah, for the chickens have come home to roost." After this fiasco, the White House should pay more attention to the wishes and desires of the Tea Party Members, and spend less time insulting those who disagree with Obamacare and Obama's questionable policies. God bless America.

Posted by: nmg3rln | January 20, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Among your losers I would include the American public. Change in political seats is not the answer for our current crisis. The following is suggested, instead.

That voter angst continues to pose a challenge for politics as usual enabled an unlikely outcome for the Senate race in Massachusetts. The American public is insisting that its national, state, and local leaders demonstrate reasonable and constructive responses to a damaged economy, unparalleled deficits, lingering wars, security concerns, and a variety of other threats to our well-being. The hope for reform that reverberated across the land one, short year ago seems to have been squandered. Leaders, and aspiring leaders, throughout our nation need to hear a wake up call.
Those of us electing officials to public office also need to carefully examine our motives and expectations. The climate seems to be one of demanding an answer to the question, “When will this crisis be over?” I suggest that we would be better served to answer the question posed by theologian Jim Wallis, “How will this crisis change us?” Along with accountability for officialdom, we will benefit as citizens by examining whether we have lost some things, forgotten some basics, and neglected time-tested values. The damage to our economy that is now ravaging us with lost jobs is in no small measure a result of government and its citizens going it alone. Changes in all of our lives, and pushing that which is discovered upward, will bring about reform that can be sustained.

Posted by: margrand1963 | January 20, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The White House seems to think that all their failings are a failure to communicate properly, not actual policy failures.

I just that THEIR LISTENING PROBLEM is a communication problem.


I don't understand "failure of them to communicate to the American people" - if the American people do NOT agree, they do NOT agree.

Somehow the White House believes that they haven't LIED well enough to the American People.

If the White House had LIED better, there wouldn't be all these problems ???? It is sort of bizzarro land.

AND the idea that they understand that people are angry, but Obama doesn't want to change any policies.

What is that all about? Either Obama is listening or not.


I think there is a fundamental problem here - is Obama in there to do the people's work or is he in there just to implement an agenda that he knows people don't want.


The extent of the lies, the deceptions and the broken promises from the campaign seem to indicate that Obama thought a pack of lies was going to continue to carry him through.

Sort of strange, but internally there is a logic there - they believe if they keep on lying, somehow everyone will believe it's true, right ?

Right.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"So let me get this straight kookat........Washington DC which has been run by your hero's and party, the Democrats, for decades............DECADES and the poor people still living there is the fault of the Republican party which has no representation in DC?

Do I have that correct?"

No, dickwad, you don't have that correct. End of discussion.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:26 PM
=======================================
No.....you haven't been to Plantation Anacostia.....or NO it's not the fault of your hero's, the Dems?

End of discussion.........I guess that means the poor people consigned to Plantation Anacostia can't count on you and your Party to help them?

Well somethings never do change.......too bad about the poor people......I guess that's Social Justice 2010........sad.

Posted by: allenridge | January 20, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"So let me get this straight kookat........Washington DC which has been run by your hero's and party, the Democrats, for decades............DECADES and the poor people still living there is the fault of the Republican party which has no representation in DC?

Do I have that correct?"

No, dickwad, you don't have that correct. End of discussion.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Was that somehow a compliment? LOL

I'll trade you drindl (sorry drindl!) and chris fox for zouk/kingofzouk/snowbama/moonbat/drivl.

People like allenridge are just pests. zouk is more like a plague.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:22 PM
==================================

Yeah....koolkat.....shame on me for bringing up the FACT that your hero's and Party are running a modern-day plantation in the capital of the USA.......


I guess I'm like the poor people consigned there..........I'm just a pest.......right?

Again, koolkat have you ever been to Plantation Anacostia? It's a pretty easy question koolkat........are they invisible to you and your Party?

Posted by: allenridge | January 20, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Taxes are going to be lower because of this race.

Taxes are on the loser side.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Was that somehow a compliment? LOL

I'll trade you drindl (sorry drindl!) and chris fox for zouk/kingofzouk/snowbama/moonbat/drivl.

People like allenridge are just pests. zouk is more like a plague.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"Wouldn't be nice if your hero's and Party koolkat1960 closed down all their plantations and raised up the poor.

Start with Plantation Anacostia........ever been there koolkat?"

Scumbag, maybe you should take your complaints to your beloved GOP representatives in Congress. They love to exert control over the DC government, but they don't seem to have much interest in the citizens of DC.

What a pathetic broken record you are. Just a couple of brain cells above a bot.


Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:12 PM
==========================

So let me get this straight kookat........Washington DC which has been run by your hero's and party, the Democrats, for decades............DECADES and the poor people still living there is the fault of the Republican party which has no representation in DC?

Do I have that correct?

Again koolkat have you ever been to Plantation Anacostia in the "deep blue one-party" city of DC?

Posted by: allenridge | January 20, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The American People won.


The democrats are still clueless - they want to keep on going with their health care bill.

If they do that, they will lose 100 seats in the House in November.

so be it.


With 787 Billion in stimulus, Obama and the democrats could have given jobs at 30K to 26 Million people -

However at 10% there are only 15 Million people unemployed total.


Where is that money ???


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

These candidates who run for office and have no idea why they are running, make me sick.

If she had said she wants our troops home, she opposes no win wars. She wants to put tariffs on commie Chinese goods, and on all countries, like commie China, that have unfair trade practices, and that SHE WANTS OUR JOBS BACK, she would have one.

But, right now, we have two political parties which kowtow to the banksters. We need one for the American worker, one willing to take our jobs back, one way or another.

These Dems always campaign, saying they are like Harry Truman and FDR, but when push comes to shove, they or moribund. STAND UP FOR THE WORKERS, DEMS. You'll win.

Posted by: santafe2 | January 20, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

nice cherry picking of data there JakeD.
I was referring to the types of machines that are used. The hand counts came back for coakley and the voting machine data (which you would think would be faster than hand counting ballots, arrived significantly later. Take what you like and leave the rest, but don't tell me we should trust these machines on a vote of this magnitude. We sold our vote to big business long ago.. wake up and smell the corporate takeover of America.

Posted by: insanelycool | January 20, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

You know, if every day it was just "koolkat_1960" here rather than "drindl" and (the banned) Chris Fox -- I hope they didn't jump off a bridge somewhere though -- this would be a GREAT discussion blog.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Wouldn't be nice if your hero's and Party koolkat1960 closed down all their plantations and raised up the poor.

Start with Plantation Anacostia........ever been there koolkat?"

Scumbag, maybe you should take your complaints to your beloved GOP representatives in Congress. They love to exert control over the DC government, but they don't seem to have much interest in the citizens of DC.

What a pathetic broken record you are. Just a couple of brain cells above a bot.


Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"pasted the NYTimes" = passed the NYTimes"?

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse


allenridge


It's just a discussion blog


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January
========================

yep.......and I'm just discussing.......

Posted by: allenridge | January 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

After Massachusetts!

What is President Obama to do? The advice comes from an unsuspecting
Quarter,
Robbing-America at http://www.robbingamerica.blogspot.com

With: “After Massachusetts – 10 Actions To Take To Save Obama’s Presidency”

No nonsense common sense. Otherwise, is goodbye Mr. President.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | January 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

allenridge


It's just a discussion blog

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

It wouldn't be a Washington Post message board without a "wolfpack press" post from allenridge.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:03 PM
===========================

Wouldn't be nice if your hero's and Party koolkat1960 closed down all their plantations and raised up the poor.

Start with Plantation Anacostia........ever been there koolkat?

probably not............sad creature

Posted by: allenridge | January 20, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

It wouldn't be a Washington Post message board without a "wolfpack press" post from allenridge.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

It wouldn't be a Washington Post message board without a "wolfpack press" post from allenridge.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse


Obama is not a loser on this list ??


How about Broad____joe ???


How about all the liberal posters ?

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 1:58 PM
=============================

37thandOstreet.......consider the source of this "story". It's the corrupt liberal/progressive Washington POST which was caught Red-handed pimping for Obama's health care plan for between $25K and $250K

The POST is probably the most corrupt urban paper in America today......they have pasted the NYTimes..........fyi

Posted by: allenridge | January 20, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Poor leapin. Still crying and whining because his hack candidate lost in MN. Typical rightwingnut teabagger. Always whining about something.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey flaming liberal Chris Cilliza......how's that "REPUBLICAN BRAND" looking now? Don't you and the POST look foolish for pushing that olde propaganda story just a week ago now?

And Chris you missed the biggest winner and the guy that got Brown elected, Mitt Romney.

Mitt's campaign staff was Browns staff for this election. Romney stayed clear of our wolfpack press because he wanted to remain stealthy.........which he did.

THAT's why Mitt Romney introduced Scott Brown last night and that's why Scott Brown thanked Mitt Romney after thanking his wife and family.

We can't wait for President Mitt Romney to take over for the clueless installed one in January 2013....

Chris .......keep the censoring coming.......lol !

And Chris can't wait to read your story on the "poor Democrat Brand" ..........sad.

Posted by: allenridge | January 20, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not a loser on this list ??


How about Broad____joe ???


How about all the liberal posters ?

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

insanelycool:

You mean "urban centers" that went for Coakley, right?

CITY____Coakley %__Brown %

Boston 105,289 69% 46,468 30%

Cambridge 27,268 84% 4,921 15%

Newton 23,456 67% 11,352 32%

Worcester 19,861 52% 17,889 47%

Springfield 17,610 61% 10,630 37%

Somerville 16,965 75% 5,462 24%

Brookline 15,264 74% 5,217 25%

Arlington 13,284 65% 6,845 34%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010#By_municipality

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

.
.
.
I can't help thinking that if Coakley had run a good campaign then Brown would have lost. Forget anti-Obama sentiment, forget the GOP tide, forget all the rest. It's just Coakley vs. Brown, and Brown won.
.
.
.

Posted by: egc52556 | January 20, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Sounds to me like good old election fraud.
Posted by: insanelycool
------------------------------------------

The results were beyond the margin of ACORN. Throw away the MN playbook. It won't work.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Winners: Tea Party Attendees

Losers: Free Lunchers (aka Dbaggers)

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Sounds to me like good old election fraud. I'm sure it was "close" but common, rural areas that hand counted paper ballots went to coakly but urban centers counting on electronic machines went for brown? I can't trust results like that. Congratulations America, for allowing corporate interests to control your voting process with their machines and memory cards, that we have PROVEN, are easily hackable. We just got the switcheroo and the media wont even talk about HOW WE VOTE. WHAT WE VOTE ON, AND HOW VULNERABLE IT IS TO THE WHIM OF THE COMPANIES WHO ADMINISTER THESE MACHINES, MEMORY CARDS, AND TABULATION MACHINES.

Posted by: insanelycool | January 20, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Come on, CC, is Sarah Palin a winner or a loser today? Who cares about these other people?

Ace McNumbnuts: Still a loser and always will be.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm still pouring over all of the numbers (can't wait for Rasmussen's full exit polling data either), here's a comprehensive list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010#Results

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Why no mention of Obama / Axelrod?!

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

was curious as to why no one wrote an article about the correlation between Massachusetts voters "rejecting the health care plan" by voting for Brown and the fact that Massachusetts already has universal health care (ironically because of Mitt Romney). For Martha Coakley to campaign for universal health care is like an insurance agent attempting to convince you to get a new auto insurance policy when you already satisfied with the one you already have.


Posted by: Jay20 | January 20, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company