PDA

View Full Version : Republican Scott Brown Gaining in Massachusetts Senate Race




FrankRep
01-11-2010, 09:51 AM
Republican State Sen. Scott Brown appears to be gainng on Attorney General martha coakley in the special election for the late Edward Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts. by Jack Kenny


Republican Scott Brown Gaining in Massachusetts Senate Race (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2731-republican-brown-gaining-in-mass-senate-race)


Jack Kenny | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
11 January 2010


Even in the Republican Tsunami of 1994, the Grand Old Party did not really come close to taking the U.S. Senate seat ordained in perpetuity for the Kennedy family and its political heirs. But the last prince of Camelot is dead, and while Martha Coakley no doubt knew the late Senator and may even have been a friend of Ted Kennedy, Martha Coakley is no Ted Kennedy.

So even though Coakley had been considered a shoo-in for the January 19 special election to fill the Massachusetts senate seat left vacant by the Senator's death last summer, recent polls indicate Republican Scott Brown is gaining on his better-known opponent. And in a special election in January, with turnout expected to be low, Kennedy's political detractors, seeing at long last a chance to win the seat, may turn out in greater proportion than the late Senator's admirers, who may be tempted to stay home because they take the election for granted. And because, it may be repeated, Martha Coakley is not Ted Kennedy.

She is, however, the state's Attorney General, and she used her name recognition to cruise to an easy win over U.S. Rep. Mike Capuano and others in the December 8 Democratic primary. But according to the Washington Post, she has since drawn criticism from Party strategists, both in Massachusetts and nationally, for allegedly not doing enough to organize and motivate her supporters in a political climate that, even in die-hard Democratic Massachusetts, is no longer friendly to the Democrats and the Party's agenda.

GOP excitement was fueled in recent days by the latest polls in the race. Two automated polls — a controversial methodology — showed the contest within single digits, and a Boston Globe poll released Sunday showed Coakley and Brown tied among those "extremely interested" in the race. "Although Coakley carries a sizable 15-point advantage in the Globe (overall) poll, and leads on most issues," the Post reports today, "special elections are low-turnout affairs and are notoriously difficult to poll accurately, allowing both sides to spin the numbers."

Not only Republicans, but unaffiliated conservative organizations, sensing blood in the political water, have mobilized with attacks on Coakley. The American Future Fund is reportedly spending more than $400,000 on ads knocking Coakley on the ever-present issue of taxes and reports suggest there is more where that came from. Democrats, sensing the urgency of the situation, have announced that former President Bill Clinton will be campaigning for Coakley in Massachusetts on Friday. Democrats are also sending out a fundraising e-mail seeking donations to help "fight back against swiftboat attacks" in the race — a reference to ads featuring Navy swiftboat veterans attacking the character of Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts during his 2004 presidential bid.

According to the Post, two factors are commonly cited as reasons why the race has been tightening: the "national issue landscape and Coakley's less-than-inspiring general-election campaign."

"People are angry — way too many are out of work, everyone is scared about the economy, [and] they don't want their taxes to go up," a Massachusetts Democrat told the Washington paper. "It's not surprising that the out-of-power party could gain some momentum, even in Massachusetts."

Critics may be underestimating the difficulty for Coakley, who is running as the political heir of the Senator who had held the seat for nearly half a century and as an ally of the administration and congressional party now in power. She is being urged at the same time to campaign as a "change agent." Balancing the themes of continuity and change could be a tall order for one who has not had to run on national issues before.

Holding on to the seat is crucial for Democrats, who need every one of the 60 votes they now have in the Senate to be able to shut off Republican filibusters against the Democrats' healthcare legislation and other key components of the Obama administration's agenda. For the Kennedy family, close friends, and political allies of the late Senator, enactment of a national healthcare program is an essential part of the Senator's legacy, an effort for which he devoted much of his political career and which he described often as "the cause of my life." Republican candidate Brown has pledged to vote against the Democrats' healthcare plan as well as the administration's "cap-and-trade" legislation to reduce carbon admissions that many believe is contributing significantly to global warming, or "climate change."

Even a narrow victory in the bluest of blue states would add to momentum Republicans claim that popularity has swung their way since Obama and the Democrats took over a little more than one year ago. And the symbolism of a Republican capture of the seat held by the Kennedys for more than 60 years would surely be a morale-boosting talking point for the Republicans nationally.

The seat was won by John F. Kennedy in 1952, when the young Congressman and PT Boat hero in World War II defeated Henry Cabot Lodge, the descendent of a prominent Republican family and a fixture in the foreign policy establishment represented by the Council of Foreign Relations, an organization dedicated to bringing about a one-world government. A friend of the Kennedys occupied the seat for two years after JFK went to the White House and his brother and campaign manager, Robert F. Kennedy, became the U.S. Attorney General. In 1962, Edward Kennedy, barely meeting the minimum constitutional requirement of 30 years of age, ran for and won the seat, clearly playing on his White House connections, boasting in campaign ads that "Kennedy can DO MORE for Massachusetts."

He easily won election that year and had only one close call since, one that may or not be meaningful for Republicans nationally as 2012 approaches. In 1994, Republican Mitt Romney appeared to briefly hold a lead over the five-term Senator, only to falter and fade when summer turned to autumn. Romney, who later was elected to and served a single term as the state's Governor, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 before conceding the nomination to Arizona Sen. John McCain. He is expected to seek the 2012 nomination, despite lukewarm support from Party conservatives.

Brown, a youthful 50, is a state Senator, representing the Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex District since 2004. A self-proclaimed believer in small-government, free-market conservatism, Brown is a practicing attorney with a concentration in family law. He is a 1977 graduate of Wakefield High School and was graduated from Tufts University and Boston College Law School.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/2731-republican-brown-gaining-in-mass-senate-race

FrankRep
01-11-2010, 10:04 AM
On Scott Brown

Website:
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues


I liked his platform until I hit this statement:


I support the bi-partisan Iran sanctions bill and believe that until Ahmadinejad gives up his nuclear ambitions he should be isolated from the rest of the world. With its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran represents the biggest threat to Israel.

Typical interventionist.

ItsTime
01-11-2010, 10:13 AM
On Scott Brown

Website:
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues


I liked his platform until I hit this statement:



Typical interventionist.

And that plays well in Mass.

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 11:27 AM
On Scott Brown

Website:
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues


I liked his platform until I hit this statement:



Typical interventionist.

Does that mean you support Iran's right to nuclear weapons or that you just don't think the U.S. should impose sanctions? I understand not wanting to go to war, but aren't sanctions a much better option if they work?

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 11:29 AM
Does that mean you support Iran's right to nuclear weapons or that you just don't think the U.S. should impose sanctions? I understand not wanting to go to war, but aren't sanctions a much better option if they work?

sanctions are an act of war.

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 11:31 AM
sanctions are an act of war.

So, are we already at war with Iran?

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 11:32 AM
So, are we already at war with Iran?

not declared, but our every action gives their people just cause to want it.

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 11:36 AM
not declared, but our every action gives their people just cause to want it.

The people in Iran get closer to revolution every day. The people aren't with their government. Their government has stated that they will trade the destruction of Tehran for the destruction of Israel. The majority of Iran does not like that idea.

klamath
01-11-2010, 11:37 AM
On Scott Brown

Website:
http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues


I liked his platform until I hit this statement:



Typical interventionist.

Like Schiff

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 11:39 AM
The people in Iran get closer to revolution every day. The people aren't with their government. Their government has stated that they will trade the destruction of Tehran for the destruction of Israel. The majority of Iran does not like that idea.

um, there is nothing more unifying than an outside threat. if we stepped back and left them alone, there would be revolution there. if we poke them with a stick, the opposition to their government diminishes and the current government is emboldened.
think of it from the perspective of what happened in this country after 9/11. what happened to Bush's approval ratings immediately afterwards?

Kotin
01-11-2010, 11:40 AM
The people in Iran get closer to revolution every day. The people aren't with their government. Their government has stated that they will trade the destruction of Tehran for the destruction of Israel. The majority of Iran does not like that idea.

you are obviously misinformed and believe everything you are told by our media.


Iran is no threat to Israel, Iran itself has a huge Jewish population that refuses to move to Israel because they consider themselves Iranian as much as Jewish.

I wish you would do research on a subject before offering any sort of opinion..


the situation with Iran is not at all what you think..

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 11:42 AM
They went way up, but this isn't like 9/11 because we aren't attacking them. The people are with us in denouncing their own government. Our sanctions have weakened their government to a point where revolution is now possible.

lester1/2jr
01-11-2010, 11:44 AM
"The people in Iran get closer to revolution every day. The people aren't with their government. Their government has stated that they will trade the destruction of Tehran for the destruction of Israel. The majority of Iran does not like that idea."

in the big cities but ahmednejad is still popular in the rural areas. and the government has not stated any such thing. don't believe the hype.


if you think that anti israel sentiment is restricted to the GOVERMENT of iran you are missing the picture. EVERYONE in the middle east, from reformers to jihadists, dislikes israel. wether that's fair or not is another story but it's a very very common sentiment

and yes sanctions are an act of war . "if goods don't flow over borders, tanks soon will"

in his defense, most politicians support this bill.

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 11:45 AM
you are obviously misinformed and believe everything you are told by our media.


Iran is no threat to Israel, Iran itself has a huge Jewish population that refuses to move to Israel because they consider themselves Iranian as much as Jewish.

I wish you would do research on a subject before offering any sort of opinion..


the situation with Iran is not at all what you think..

So, the video of Ahmadinejad that I am referring to is fake?

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 11:46 AM
They went way up, but this isn't like 9/11 because we aren't attacking them. The people are with us in denouncing their own government. Our sanctions have weakened their government to a point where revolution is now possible.

not with us putting sanctions on them. that unifies their government.
what would we do if china put sanctions on us? we'd unite against anything chinese.

the current iranian opposition is seen as pro-usa. if usa makes people's lives there miserable by keeping them from fuel- the pro-usa group loses power with the people.
you will get nothing but war from sanctions. it just the first step.

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 11:46 AM
I know that a majority of Iranians don't like Israel, but most of them are not willing to see Tehran destroyed and themselves martyred in the process.

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 11:48 AM
No one has answered my question about if it is ok for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. If we can't even put sanctions on them, what else can we do to stop them from acquiring nukes (unless you think they have a right to nukes)

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 11:49 AM
No one has answered my question about if it is ok for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. If we can't even put sanctions on them, what else can we do to stop them from acquiring nukes (unless you think they have a right to nukes)

does iran have the right to deny us nukes?

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 11:51 AM
does iran have the right to deny us nukes?

Why answer my question with a question. That is no answer at all. It's a simple yes or no. I'd be happy to answer your question if you answer mine.

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 11:52 AM
Why answer my question with a question. That is no answer at all. It's a simple yes or no. I'd be happy to answer your question if you answer mine.

the answer to the question answers your question. don't be dense.

georgiaboy
01-11-2010, 11:53 AM
foreign policy aside, we have to be careful about just voting for a guy with an R by his name. So many Republicans these days are just Democrat-lite. Ya gotta do the homework, look across all the candidates running including independents and third parties, and make the best choice for the one who will support the principles of individual liberty & constitutionally limited government in both word and action.

Don't go for the lesser of two evils argument -- it'll just keep perpetuating the status quo. There's no such thing as a throwaway vote.

jmdrake
01-11-2010, 11:55 AM
The people in Iran get closer to revolution every day. The people aren't with their government. Their government has stated that they will trade the destruction of Tehran for the destruction of Israel. The majority of Iran does not like that idea.

Total nonsense! On multiple levels!

Level 1: Ahmadenijad called for the end of the Israeli regime. Not the destruction of Israel proper.

Level 2: Ahmadenijad has no real power over the Iranian military. That power belongs to the "supreme leader". The "supreme leader" is subject to being removed by the democratic process.

Level 3: Under the same "supreme leader", and under a different president (Mohammed Khatami), Iran was part of the U.S. led coalition that drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml).

Level 4: Under the same "supreme leader" and president (Khatami), Iran sent an back channel "grand bargain" offer to then pResident Bush to give up support for Hamas and Hezbollah and even their peaceful nuclear weapons program (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html). All they wanted were security guarantees. Bush rejected the offer.

Level 5: Iran also tried to cooperate with the fight against Al Qaeda, but their overtures were rebuffed because Bush wanted to continue supporting the Islamo marxist terrorists that Saddam had supported while he was in power (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html). The MEK is still on our own list of terrorist organizations and yet we support them. :mad:

Regime change in Iran? We've already had it. Iran decided that appeasing Bush wasn't going to work so they went the Ahmadenijad "shock camel jock" route. Note the polar opposite positions were taken by the same supreme leader. He's not stupid. What's the point of cooperating with America if it only means you're going to get put on the "axis of evil" list anyway? Pakistan really has nukes and really has supported Al Qaeda and the Taliban and they get U.S. aid. North Korea really has nukes and has consistently been antagonistic to the U.S. and yet administration after administration at times leaves them alone and at other times gives them aid. Saddam did not have nukes and did not have ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and yet he got toppled. And we wonder why countries react to us the way they do?

jmdrake
01-11-2010, 11:57 AM
No one has answered my question about if it is ok for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. If we can't even put sanctions on them, what else can we do to stop them from acquiring nukes (unless you think they have a right to nukes)

Why are you concerned about Iran having nukes when it was Pakistan that got red handed trying to give nuke technology to Al Qaeda (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FF04Df05.html)?

klamath
01-11-2010, 11:58 AM
No one has answered my question about if it is ok for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. If we can't even put sanctions on them, what else can we do to stop them from acquiring nukes (unless you think they have a right to nukes)

As far as I am concerned Iran has the right to nuclear weapons even if it is is breaking the NPT their former government signed but at the same time sanctions are not an act of war and other nations have every right to imposes them. A blockade IS an act of war.

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 12:00 PM
As far as I am concerned Iran has the right to nuclear weapons even if it is is breaking the NPT their former government signed but at the same time sanctions are not an act of war and other nations have every right to imposes them. A blockade IS an act of war.

preventing fuel from entering a country is a blockade.
what sanctions did we put on Japan before they bombed pearl harbor?
fuel.

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 12:01 PM
Why are you concerned about Iran having nukes when it was Pakistan that got red handed trying to give nuke technology to Al Qaeda (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FF04Df05.html)?

I wish Pakistan didn't have nukes either. It'd be great if no one had nukes, but that ship has come and gone. We now live in a time in history where the best we can do is to do what we can to stop nukes from falling into the hands of extremists and I admit it's one of the hardest but most important foreign policy missions.

klamath
01-11-2010, 12:05 PM
foreign policy aside, we have to be careful about just voting for a guy with an R by his name. So many Republicans these days are just Democrat-lite. Ya gotta do the homework, look across all the candidates running including independents and third parties, and make the best choice for the one who will support the principles of individual liberty & constitutionally limited government in both word and action.

Don't go for the lesser of two evils argument -- it'll just keep perpetuating the status quo. There's no such thing as a throwaway vote.

I would vote for the R if I was in MA even if he held exactly the same ideas as the Democrat.
The R would caucus with the Republicans and deny the Democrats that 60th vote. We would not have the health care almost passed if they didn't have that 60th vote.
Cap N trade is coming up this year and don't want more cloture votes shuting down debate on that.

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 12:05 PM
I wish Pakistan didn't have nukes either. It'd be great if no one had nukes, but that ship has come and gone. We now live in a time in history where the best we can do is to do what we can to stop nukes from falling into the hands of extremists and I admit it's one of the hardest but most important foreign policy missions.

http://images.politico.com/global/080422_bush-joke5.jpg

jmdrake
01-11-2010, 12:06 PM
I wish Pakistan didn't have nukes either. It'd be great if no one had nukes, but that ship has come and gone. We now live in a time in history where the best we can do is to do what we can to stop nukes from falling into the hands of extremists and I admit it's one of the hardest but most important foreign policy missions.

And the way to do that is to threaten to attack countries that don't have nukes while giving millions in foreign aid to countries that do have nukes and that try to give the technology to Al Qaeda? That's your answer? Nonsense! For one thing we could demand that Pakistan hand over the two scientists that met with Al Qaeda for questioning. That is if we were serious about "preventing extremists from getting nukes". Further we could send a message to Iran's supreme leader that if he wants to reconsider the grand bargain of 2003 we are ready to talk. Right now we are sending a clear message to everyone, get nukes as fast as you can so that the U.S. will leave you alone. We might even give you millions in aid.

klamath
01-11-2010, 12:07 PM
preventing fuel from entering a country is a blockade.
what sanctions did we put on Japan before they bombed pearl harbor?
fuel.
And they have no right to force us to sell just as the Japanese didn't.

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 12:10 PM
And they have no right to force us to sell just as the Japanese didn't.

i'm not talking about rights- i'm talking about acts of war.
let's see what happens if OPEC decides, in their right, to deny us fuel.
it defintely wouldn't cause any turmoil or conflicts. :rolleyes:

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 12:11 PM
How in the world did we get off on this much of a tangent? http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/11/its-moneybomb-day-for-scott-brown/#comment-5673 is what I wanted to bring to everyone's attention. If you can't in good conscience support Scott Brown, then feel free to sit on the sidelines. We have a chance to stop Obamacare and so many of the other terrible liberal policies on the horizon and I'm doing everything I can to help ensure that happens.

I wish I could stay here all day to debate foreign policy with everyone, and on most days, I would, but today I'm going to focus on Scott Brown's moneybomb.

I hope you all have a great day and hopefully I'll be back soon.

jmdrake
01-11-2010, 12:11 PM
And they have no right to force us to sell just as the Japanese didn't.

Hmmmm....I remember a certain presidential candidate quoting the founding fathers in saying "friendship and trade with all, entangling alliances with none". The U.S. isn't just trying to "not sell" to Iran. We are trying to get other countries to "not sell". That's the way we reward countries that helped us drive the Taliban from power, hate Al Qaeda, and make offers of peace to us, but seek to remain independent. We snub their offers, push them to antagonism, and complain when they become antagonistic.

jmdrake
01-11-2010, 12:16 PM
How in the world did we get off on this much of a tangent? http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/11/its-moneybomb-day-for-scott-brown/#comment-5673 is what I wanted to bring to everyone's attention. If you can't in good conscience support Scott Brown, then feel free to sit on the sidelines. We have a chance to stop Obamacare and so many of the other terrible liberal policies on the horizon and I'm doing everything I can to help ensure that happens.

I wish I could stay here all day to debate foreign policy with everyone, and on most days, I would, but today I'm going to focus on Scott Brown's moneybomb.

I hope you all have a great day and hopefully I'll be back soon.

Cause the OP qualified his support for Scott Brown by pointing out that he didn't like his foreign policy and you decided to defend it even though it's totally against Ron Paul's foreign policy? I want to see Obama lose his 60 seat majority too, but I'm not sending Brown a dime. There are more deserving candidates that are in more dire need of help. If the national GOP isn't pulling out all of the stops to donate to Brown their idiots.

lester1/2jr
01-11-2010, 12:20 PM
No one has answered my question about if it is ok for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons

what do you mean "okay"? we aren't the leaders of iran. we don't decide what peple can or can't have.

more to the point: they have every right under the NPT which they signed to create nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, which they have shown every logical intention of doing.

they would be vaporized if they made a move on israel and they know it. why would they do that? they are beating up and in some cases killing their own citizens to maintain a hold on power, obviously they enjoy having that power.

this is the same case they made against saddam hussein. he was this genocidal nut who couldn't possibly be reasoned with. we know how that turned out

I understand yo uare sympathetic to the revolutionairies in iran and so am I, but sanctions on the iranian govenrment is not a good way to help them.

klamath
01-11-2010, 12:23 PM
Hmmmm....I remember a certain presidential candidate quoting the founding fathers in saying "friendship and trade with all, entangling alliances with none". The U.S. isn't just trying to "not sell" to Iran. We are trying to get other countries to "not sell". That's the way we reward countries that helped us drive the Taliban from power, hate Al Qaeda, and make offers of peace to us, but seek to remain independent. We snub their offers, push them to antagonism, and complain when they become antagonistic.

I don't agree with the sanctions but I think it is in our rights to impose them as it is our right to try and convence other countries to impose sanctions as long as no actual force is used. Iran has the right to try and convince other countries to sell them nuclear material as will.
I am all for RP's hands off ideas though. I agree with the way he would conduct foreign policy.

jmdrake
01-11-2010, 12:27 PM
I don't agree with the sanctions but I think it is in our rights to impose them as it is our right to try and convence other countries to impose sanctions as long as no actual force is used. Iran has the right to try and convince other countries to sell them nuclear material as will.
I am all for RP's hands off ideas though. I agree with the way he would conduct foreign policy.

Well I don't believe the U.N. has any legitimacy and our seeking to impose sanctions through that bastardized organization is a violation of our own constitutional principles. If this was simply one ambassador talking to another ambassador that would be a different story.

klamath
01-11-2010, 12:29 PM
i'm not talking about rights- i'm talking about acts of war.
let's see what happens if OPEC decides, in their right, to deny us fuel.
it defintely wouldn't cause any turmoil or conflicts. :rolleyes:
It doesn't matter what people consider an act of war just Like our stupid politicians believe that Irans attempt to get nuclear weapons is an act of war.

klamath
01-11-2010, 12:30 PM
Well I don't believe the U.N. has any legitimacy and our seeking to impose sanctions through that bastardized organization is a violation of our own constitutional principles. If this was simply one ambassador talking to another ambassador that would be a different story.

I agree.

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 12:31 PM
It doesn't matter what people consider an act of war just Like our stupid politicians believe that Irans attempt to get nuclear weapons is an act of war.

it does matter because it leads to war. that is why i asked, what sanctions did we put on japan before they bombed us.
if I wanted to encourage an attack on this country to gain more control and power- just antagonize another country with sanctions- a viola- another 9/11.
Barrack the Dictator now becomes emperor.
if you don't see the correlation- i feel sorry for you.

klamath
01-11-2010, 12:41 PM
it does matter because it leads to war. that is why i asked, what sanctions did we put on japan before they bombed us.
if I wanted to encourage an attack on this country to gain more control and power- just antagonize another country with sanctions- a viola- another 9/11.
Barrack the Dictator now becomes emperor.
if you don't see the correlation- i feel sorry for you.

End of discusion. Forgot who I was taking to.

georgiaboy
01-11-2010, 12:44 PM
I would vote for the R if I was in MA even if he held exactly the same ideas as the Democrat.
The R would caucus with the Republicans and deny the Democrats that 60th vote. We would not have the health care almost passed if they didn't have that 60th vote.
Cap N trade is coming up this year and don't want more cloture votes shuting down debate on that.

I disagree with your reasoning - who's to say the R would caucus with whom? Both of my R senators in GA are bailouters - go figure.

I understand the politics of the nation witnessing an R win in MA, but if it's an empty win, it's actually worse than if the D had held it. The nation will perceive a seachange, when once again, there won't be one. Until the GOP gets it right, they'll have to suffer the losses, and who knows, maybe we hit bottom quicker and people finally figure things out.

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 12:48 PM
End of discusion. Forgot who I was taking to.

not a good substitute for a lack of substance, but has the same result.

klamath
01-11-2010, 12:50 PM
I disagree with your reasoning - who's to say the R would caucus with whom? Both of my R senators in GA are bailouters - go figure.

I understand the politics of the nation witnessing an R win in MA, but if it's an empty win, it's actually worse than if the D had held it. The nation will perceive a seachange, when once again, there won't be one. Until the GOP gets it right, they'll have to suffer the losses, and who knows, maybe we hit bottom quicker and people finally figure things out.

They voted for the bailout because Bush was pushing it. Sure there is a chance that the R would break ranks but the odds are pretty high he wouldn't. The agenda is being pushed by the democrats so the R's will most likely oppose it.
Do I like this? No but I will use what ever tactic I can to stop the steamrolling Obama agenda.

georgiaboy
01-11-2010, 01:03 PM
By taking your tactic, K, you may slow or soften the agenda a tad, but stop? No.

And btw, I'm sure we're on the same side of the end goal, which of course is to not only stop, but roll back.

klamath
01-11-2010, 01:24 PM
By taking your tactic, K, you may slow or soften the agenda a tad, but stop? No.

And btw, I'm sure we're on the same side of the end goal, which of course is to not only stop, but roll back.
Unfortunately yes. Somewhere in the future we may all go off the cliff with the direction we are going and like a game of tug of war I am going to fight ever step of the way. I can never subscribe to the "we will be better off when we go off the cliff strategy"
The momentum over the cliff has to stop before it can go the other direction.

danielboon
01-11-2010, 01:54 PM
heres my take on this being from this state has not been fun. Coakley is really bad if she gets in she will make things much worse.there arent many options. even though i don't agree with every thing brown does ther really isn't much choice.

lester1/2jr
01-11-2010, 02:09 PM
they're all awful. I really don't care who wins

angelatc
01-11-2010, 02:27 PM
There's actually a liberty candidate in the race, too, but it's a little late to start rallying behind him. None the less, that's who I'd vote for if I lived there. I have no interest in protecting Israel at the expense of America.

The independent guy's name is Joe L Kennedy - no relation to Ted et al.

HOLLYWOOD
01-11-2010, 03:44 PM
There's actually a liberty candidate in the race, too, but it's a little late to start rallying behind him. None the less, that's who I'd vote for if I lived there. I have no interest in protecting Israel at the expense of America.

The independent guy's name is Joe L Kennedy - no relation to Ted et al.

Well, everyone can watch the special election, Massachusetts Senate Debate LIVE tonight, 1/11, on C-SPAN. 7PM ET/ 4PM PT

Martha Coakley (D)
Scott Brown (R)
Joe Kennedy (I)

If you don't have the ability to watch via TV... here's the link on the net from C-SPAN.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

Maestro232
01-11-2010, 03:53 PM
In case anyone cares...I'm from Massachusetts, and though I nearly always vote my concsience because there is rarely even a chance to unseat a Dem, I will be voting for Brown solely because there is an R in front of his name.

torchbearer
01-11-2010, 03:55 PM
In case anyone cares...I'm from Massachusetts, and though I nearly always vote my concsience because there is rarely even a chance to unseat a Dem, I will be voting for Brown solely because there is an R in front of his name.

you are forgiven in advance because it may make sense from a tactical stand point.

Brian4Liberty
01-11-2010, 04:03 PM
There's actually a liberty candidate in the race, too, but it's a little late to start rallying behind him.

He should have run as a Republican in the Primary. The Primary is the time to rally for our liberty candidates, or we will never have one in the general elections.

Cinderella
01-11-2010, 06:11 PM
a vote for Brown is like a vote for Coakley...they are one in the same with the issues...i am voting kennedy...i will not vote for the lesser of two evils...its that mentality that keeps us in this damn mess...

HOLLYWOOD
01-11-2010, 06:23 PM
LIVE on C-SPAN.... the Debate

Democrat is blaming Bush/Cheney for all the problems... David Gergen is the Moderator

HOLLYWOOD
01-11-2010, 06:36 PM
This guy Scott Brown is a LOSER... "we're at War at our airports, we're at war at our malls...

This debate is the typical dichotomy of same wings of the same bird.


Brown is more than a NEOCON... he's running rabid.

What a Fiasco... of course Gergen is giving majority of the time to Brown and the DUMBOcrat.

Joe Kennedy is the Ron Paul in this Debate.

Brian4Liberty
01-11-2010, 08:12 PM
This guy Scott Brown is a LOSER... "we're at War at our airports, we're at war at our malls...

This debate is the typical dichotomy of same wings of the same bird.


Brown is more than a NEOCON... he's running rabid.

What a Fiasco... of course Gergen is giving majority of the time to Brown and the DUMBOcrat.

Joe Kennedy is the Ron Paul in this Debate.

And Scott Brown is the spawn of Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney.

That was a disappointing debate.

You can vote for Joe Kennedy (the liberty candidate) here:

http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/11/poll-who-won-tonights-debate-scott-brown-vs-martha-coakley/

CaseyJones
01-11-2010, 08:19 PM
voted
let's shake it up :p

Maestro232
01-11-2010, 08:23 PM
Look...I don't like having to vote for this scumbag, but right now the most immediate problem is the healthcare bill. If that passes, say goodbye to America. There will be plenty of other elections with which to vote your conscience.

HOLLYWOOD
01-11-2010, 08:28 PM
Look...I don't like having to vote for this scumbag, but right now the most immediate problem is the healthcare bill. If that passes, say goodbye to America. There will be plenty of other elections with which to vote your conscience.

It's gonna a pass... it did pass... it only takes a vote count of 51 to reconcile.

parocks
01-11-2010, 08:37 PM
It's gonna a pass... it did pass... it only takes a vote count of 51 to reconcile.

Whether it takes 51 or 60 right now is unclear. I've heard something like, if any changes are made to the Senate version (or the house version), 60 will be needed.
Something having to do with DeMint objecting to the conferees, perhaps?

Schiff_FTW
01-11-2010, 08:44 PM
Wow it looks like he's already raised over a million today. http://www.brownforussenate.com/red-invades-blue

I hope he wins. Not to the extent of giving him money or anything, but he is better than the alternative. Too bad the only person I know living in Massachusetts is super liberal. Fortunately I'm sure he'll forget to vote.

Koz
01-11-2010, 08:44 PM
He's raised over a million so far today.

This guy is a neocon, but if he can win T. Kennedy's seat then that is a victory for conservatives.

The only way to restore our republic is to elect pro liberty candidates where we can. Ky is one place, and there are others. Mass. is probably not one of those places right now.

FrankRep
01-11-2010, 08:55 PM
Scott Brown 'Money-Bomb' Brings In Big Money (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/scott-brown-money-bomb-bring-in-big-money.php)

Talking Points Memo
January 11, 2010


A "money-bomb" online fundraiser by Scott Brown, the Republican candidate in next week's special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts, has been a smashing success today.

The original goal for the money-bomb, entitled "Red Invades Blue (http://www.brownforussenate.com/red-invades-blue)," was to raise $500,000 today. As of this writing, he has exceeded that goal -- he is now at $626,375.87 -- and he's headed towards a new goal of $750,000.

Regardless of whether Brown wins or loses in this Democratic state, one thing is clear: National conservative activists have been able to take a clear interest in this race, and they could mobilize themselves for a cause in a similar way to the liberal Netroots during the Bush years.


SOURCE:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/scott-brown-money-bomb-bring-in-big-money.php


Update: $1,012,059.94 so far!

RebelRoss0587
01-11-2010, 09:57 PM
POLL: Who Won Tonight’s Debate? Scott Brown vs Martha Coakley vs Joseph Kennedy: http://bit.ly/8w6HVt

angelatc
01-11-2010, 10:20 PM
Look...I don't like having to vote for this scumbag, but right now the most immediate problem is the healthcare bill. If that passes, say goodbye to America. There will be plenty of other elections with which to vote your conscience.

The Secretary Of State already promised to hold on on certifying the election until after Health Care gets through the Senate though.

CGeoffrion
01-11-2010, 10:30 PM
Living in MA I had to watch this debate and I have to say it was so stupidly silly. It reminded me of that episode of south park with the giant douche and the turd sandwich. Kennedy was by far the best of the candidate though, Brown had to pretend he didn't exist otherwise people may realize he is basically just a pro-war democrat with an R next to his name....

yatez112
01-11-2010, 10:34 PM
Turned on the debate, without knowing much about the candidates, and came away with Joe Kennedy being the only candidate worth voting for, if I were in MA. Ugh.

Flash
01-11-2010, 10:40 PM
I think I'll vote for Brown. I want Massachusetts to be ruled by more than 1 party. May be one day a Joe Kennedy can win a Republican primary, otherwise its pointless.

randolphfuller
01-11-2010, 10:46 PM
As long as people keep voting for candidates like Scott Brown. Republicans will keep nominating them. It is essential that this type of Republican be defeated. Hopefully Kennedy will get enough votes to see Brown defeated.