Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves here

[Annie]

While I am glad that a Republican won on MA, it is telling that he didn't run on the party platform, and he got next to no help from the national party.

Scott Brown didn't win as a Republican, or as a Conservative. He won as the candidate who wanted to wake up the jerkasses in both parties to listen to the needs of the people. Our elective representitves are sent to do a job, not to engage in middle school insult contests.

Scott Brown is not the candidate of business as usual, he seems to be the candidate of "Pay attention when we are talking to you"

He owes the Republicans few favors. He is a minority party candidate and he needs to demonstrate he understands what got him where he is.

Which is why he does sound like a tea party person. He credited the win with 'Massachusetts independents,' and he was right. The message of this race and the tea party movement is about the lack of response to the populace by both parties.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

It's the people's seat!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

QUIT whoring for rep dogbert....jesus christ!!!!

Considering Article gave me rep for a post just last night I do believe, he cannot give me rep now if I am thinking correct. However, I'm not rep whoring nor do I care about rep.

But go ahead, neg rep me. Warning though, I have a return neg policy for immature punks like you.

Sorry you immature child...I repped you for your birthday...but that's it. Any post you make is pretty much ultra-liberal horseshit this country can do without....but feel free to exress your whacked left wing garbage...America needs to see what you and people like you have to say...so you NEVER NEVER get any power in government.

 

[Xenophon]

But they want Health Care Reform especially.

No they don't, and that has been the point all along.

The american political left has been trying to socialize medicene in the USA since the Clintons and earlier, and its never been a huge priority.

What people want is a strong economy and a retirn to industrial sector jobes and an end to outsourcing.

All along 'Barrycare' has been a rediculously stupid over reach.

 

[MIPS]

While I am glad that a Republican won on MA, it is telling that he didn't run on the party platform, and he got next to no help from the national party.

Doesn't matter, what got Brown elected (besides the great campaign that he ran) was the anti-establishment sentiment and the anger the General Public has with the Federal Government and it's evil ways. This doesn't bode well for any incumbent whether they be Democrat or Republican and it certainly doesn't bode well for candidates who espouse progressive ideas and/or sentiments from either party.

The American People are fed up with big government, authoritarian, spend happy politicians and it's about damn time.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea Independents are going to play a key role in the coming elections in 2010. There are far more Independents now. Personally i feel most Independents do lean Conservative. I think most will reject this far Left Socialist agenda being forced on us. Scott Brown couldn't have won without major Independent support. Republican candidates just need to follow his lead and they should be ok. I really do believe that most Americans do lean Conservative. This obviously helps the Republican Party. I guess we'll see though.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Agreed Libo...I think Scott Brown is the new face of the Republican Party. I just finished watching his news conference....he's got the ingredients....looks, speaks articulately, handles a crowded room of reporters well, classy....let's see if he can navigate the cesspool of shit that's the current state of affairs in D.C. All he has to remember is when wallowing in shit..your going to get some on you....make sure you can clean it off Scott!!! Best of luck in D.C.!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

While I personally oppose any kind of government health care, I realize that I am a minority here. It will come soon or late.

And I think a majority of those in MA support that very bad idea, no one outside of the DC cesspit can support the double dealing dishonesty of the process so far.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you. The smartest thing that Brown's campaign did was make the election a referendum on the very unpopular healthcare bill.

Amen and amen. If the people of Massachusetts LIKED what Obama & company, Pelosi & company, Reid & company have been doing, Martha could have been the worst idiot on the face of the Earth and sustained a huge scandal and they would have voted for her anyway. Brown was elected because he was the ONLY viable candidate running that opposed the abominable healthcare takeover, opposed the backroom Cornhusker sellout, the Louisiana purchase, and deals for the unions to buy votes, and who opposes giving citizen rights to terrorists who intend to obliterate as many of us as they can. I wish he had included Cap & Trade in all that, but the fact is, it was elect him or elect Coakley who would have voted with the liberal Democrats.

Sure we can throw away our vote for our personal convictions. Or we can put our vote where it will do the most good for the country.

It remains to be seen though whether it would have been better for Coakley to have won by a narrow margin so that the whole mess would crash and burn by November. That could happen anyway, but Brown may have sidetracked the runaway train sufficiently that a complete Democrat bloodbath won't happen now.

Still, if Brown's victory forces Obama et al to shift back toward the center and govern sensibly, that would be a good thing too.

I agree with you to some extent, but I think we're looking at the situation from two different perspectives. I'm looking at it in terms of the way the campaigns were run (It's what I do for a living, so it's very relevant to me) - not in terms of the ideologies of either candidate or the people of Massachusetts. I'm not trying to extrapolate meaning from this, or use it to judge the electorate - I'm using it as something to learn from, to enable me to do my job better.

Well I don't do it for a living, but I've been doing that as an avocation for a very long time now. I think you can take the following to the bank:

1) The Republicans fell out of favor because they largely abandoned the core values that the people expected of them, i.e. smaller government, more personal freedom, strong national defense, personal responsibility and accountablility, fiscal integrity, a strong, proud, prosperous America.

2) Obama was able to exploit the GOP sins with a message of hope and change for the better, more transparency, more accountability, more fiscal integrity and responsibility, reform, etc.

3) When it became obvious that the Obama campaign was all smoke and mirrors, and that the true Obama agenda was one of a soft Marxist socialism, less personal freedom, less personal responsibility, less personal accountability, bigger and more authoritarian government, payoffs to special interests, and focus on acquiescing to world demands/expectations, his regime has been steadily falling out of favor.

4) The GOP as a minority has behaved much better than they did as a GOP majority. (It remains to be seen whether they truly woke up and smelled the coffee.)

5) The Tea Partiers are the voice of the people expressing their expectations for government and their anger and disappointment at the way both the GOP and the Democrats have behaved.

6) Scott Brown, whether or not he sympathises or supports the Tea Parties, capitalized on the rising fortunes of the GOP and expressed the identifical message the Tea Partiers have been expressing. He resonated well with people, even in Massachusetts, who are fed up with irresponsible or exploitive government and want a return to core values and proven values that work.

And that, in my opinion, is why Scott Brown was elected. If his campaign rhetoric turns out to be all smoke and mirrors--if he betrays the trust of the people--he will be scum by November and may be a very short-lived senator. I'm thinking (maybe hoping) he's the real deal though and others will follow his example.

 

[Modbert]

Yea, you are and yea you do.

Considering your rep whoring to certain people, you're probably one of the last person who should start throwing stones from that glass house.

 

[Modbert]

Agreed Libo...I think Scott Brown is the new face of the Republican Party. I just finished watching his news conference....he's got the ingredients....looks, speaks articulately, handles a crowded room of reporters well, classy....let's see if he can navigate the cesspool of shit that's the current state of affairs in D.C. All he has to remember is when wallowing in shit..your going to get some on you....make sure you can clean it off Scott!!! Best of luck in D.C.!

One of the more Liberal Senators in the GOP is the new face of the Republican Party? I'm sure the tea parties and heads of the GOP will love that.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I agree,lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. While this is an incredibly historic victory,it is only one victory. The Democrats still control everything. The Republicans need a lot more victories to get back in the game. This is definitely not the end. It's only the beginning. We'll see how things shake out in 2010. It is going to be interesting.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Amen and amen. If the people of Massachusetts LIKED what Obama & company, Pelosi & company, Reid & company have been doing, Martha could have been the worst idiot on the face of the Earth and sustained a huge scandal and they would have voted for her anyway. Brown was elected because he was the ONLY viable candidate running that opposed the abominable healthcare takeover, opposed the backroom Cornhusker sellout, the Louisiana purchase, and deals for the unions to buy votes, and who opposes giving citizen rights to terrorists who intend to obliterate as many of us as they can. I wish he had included Cap & Trade in all that, but the fact is, it was elect him or elect Coakley who would have voted with the liberal Democrats.

Sure we can throw away our vote for our personal convictions. Or we can put our vote where it will do the most good for the country.

It remains to be seen though whether it would have been better for Coakley to have won by a narrow margin so that the whole mess would crash and burn by November. That could happen anyway, but Brown may have sidetracked the runaway train sufficiently that a complete Democrat bloodbath won't happen now.

Still, if Brown's victory forces Obama et al to shift back toward the center and govern sensibly, that would be a good thing too.

I agree with you to some extent, but I think we're looking at the situation from two different perspectives. I'm looking at it in terms of the way the campaigns were run (It's what I do for a living, so it's very relevant to me) - not in terms of the ideologies of either candidate or the people of Massachusetts. I'm not trying to extrapolate meaning from this, or use it to judge the electorate - I'm using it as something to learn from, to enable me to do my job better.

I'm going to disagree on a number of these things, while still agreeing with your point.

Well I don't do it for a living, but I've been doing that as an avocation for a very long time now. I think you can take the following to the bank:

1) The Republicans fell out of favor because they largely abandoned the core values that the people expected of them, i.e. smaller government, more personal freedom, strong national defense, personal responsibility and accountablility, fiscal integrity, a strong, proud, prosperous America.

I disagree. The Republicans fell out of favor because of the condition that George W. Bush left this country in. The "core values" of the GOP never existed - Republicans, just like Democrats have NEVER shruken the government, the GOP stands for personal freedoms - unless you're gay, or you smoke pot, or any number of other things. A "core value" of the GOP has been the Religious Right - which stand for nothing close to "more personal freedom". The "core values" that you've mentioned have nothing to do with Republicanism or why Scott Brown won - they're just rhetoric that the party NEVER actually followed.

2) Obama was able to exploit the GOP sins with a message of hope and change for the better, more transparency, more accountability, more fiscal integrity and responsibility, reform, etc.

Agreed. He ran a brilliant campaign as well.

3) When it became obvious that the Obama campaign was all smoke and mirrors, and that the true Obama agenda was one of a soft Marxist socialism, less personal freedom, less personal responsibility, less personal accountability, bigger and more authoritarian government, payoffs to special interests, and focus on acquiescing to world demands/expectations, his regime has been steadily falling out of favor.

I disagree again. Obama's agenda is NOT "soft Marxist socialism", and making a statement like that shows that you don't understand what those words mean. Also, what has Obama done to make the government more authoritarian? What has he done to erode personal freedoms?

4) The GOP as a minority has behaved much better than they did as a GOP majority. (It remains to be seen whether they truly woke up and smelled the coffee.)

As they always have - behaved like politicians.

5) The Tea Partiers are the voice of the people expressing their expectations for government and their anger and disappointment at the way both the GOP and the Democrats have behaved.

That is true, although I think they're a little misguided.

6) Scott Brown, whether or not he sympathises or supports the Tea Parties, capitalized on the rising fortunes of the GOP and expressed the identifical message the Tea Partiers have been expressing. He resonated well with people, even in Massachusetts, who are fed up with irresponsible or exploitive government and want a return to core values and proven values that work.

I agree with this to an extent, but I think you might be projecting your views on the voters of Massachusetts a little - specifically "a return to core values and proven values that work". What core, proven values are you talking about?

And that, in my opinion, is why Scott Brown was elected. If his campaign rhetoric turns out to be all smoke and mirrors--if he betrays the trust of the people--he will be scum by November and may be a very short-lived senator. I'm thinking (maybe hoping) he's the real deal though and others will follow his example.

He will "betray" anyone who is putting too much faith in his rhetoric, just like Obama "betrayed" the left by moving to the middle as soon as he was elected. He's a politician - a good one, but a good politician doesn't mean a good person. It means he knows the system, and how to work it. I don't know how it'll end up, but I wouldn't put my faith in him.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with you to some extent, but I think we're looking at the situation from two different perspectives. I'm looking at it in terms of the way the campaigns were run (It's what I do for a living, so it's very relevant to me) - not in terms of the ideologies of either candidate or the people of Massachusetts. I'm not trying to extrapolate meaning from this, or use it to judge the electorate - I'm using it as something to learn from, to enable me to do my job better.

I'm going to disagree on a number of these things, while still agreeing with your point.


I disagree. The Republicans fell out of favor because of the condition that George W. Bush left this country in. The "core values" of the GOP never existed - Republicans, just like Democrats have NEVER shruken the government, the GOP stands for personal freedoms - unless you're gay, or you smoke pot, or any number of other things. A "core value" of the GOP has been the Religious Right - which stand for nothing close to "more personal freedom". The "core values" that you've mentioned have nothing to do with Republicanism or why Scott Brown won - they're just rhetoric that the party NEVER actually followed.

Hee hee. Well we now know who you work for in analyzing campaigns, and it sure as heck isn't anybody in the GOP.

The Republicans didn't fall out of favor 'because of the condition George W. Bush left this country in.' The Republicans fell out of favor well before 2006, and were voted out of power in 2006, because they were spending like drunken sailors, were not keeping their pledge to reduce the size and scope of big government, and, in the eyes of the Republicans, Independents, and moderate Democrats who put them into office, they had broken their trust with the people. The economy, however, was doing quite well at the time. The electorate had become quite war weary by then, but that alone was not enough to trigger the rebellion at the ballot box.

Do not confuse the core values that makes a person decide to be a Republican and the behavior of irresponsible people they inadvertently elect to office.

I disagree again. Obama's agenda is NOT "soft Marxist socialism", and making a statement like that shows that you don't understand what those words mean. Also, what has Obama done to make the government more authoritarian? What has he done to erode personal freedoms?

I can assure you that I know what Marxism is and I know when principles advocated by Marx are implemented. It isn't that the administration is intentionally emulating Marxist polcies, but that is what they are just the same. Taking over major corporations, dictating wages and policy to others, presuming to effect more control over curriculum, a proposed 'civilian security force', promoting policies that would exercise total government control over a healthcare system representing one sixth of the U.S. economy, promoting a Cap and Trade that would impose the largest government tax ever known on the people while radically eroding their choices, options, and opportunities and punishing them if they failed to toe the line, and an emphasis on punishing the rich on pretense that this will somehow empower and enrich the poor, etc. etc. etc.

And it is precisely those kinds of things that the Tea Parties have been protesting and condemning in no uncertain terms.

That is true, although I think they're (the Tea Partiers) a little misguided.

Using an objective and non prejudiced eye, I think only true Obama-ites and true liberal big government advocates attempt to paint the Tea Partiers as 'misguided', a little or at all. Right or wrong, they are citizens exercising their right to speak and petition their government for redress of grievances.

6) Scott Brown, whether or not he sympathises or supports the Tea Parties, capitalized on the rising fortunes of the GOP and expressed the identifical message the Tea Partiers have been expressing. He resonated well with people, even in Massachusetts, who are fed up with irresponsible or exploitive government and want a return to core values and proven values that work.

I agree with this to an extent, but I think you might be projecting your views on the voters of Massachusetts a little - specifically "a return to core values and proven values that work". What core, proven values are you talking about?

The core values Scott Brown promoted. No backroom deals, no taxation without representation, no big government takeovers to which the people have said a resounding 'no', no coddling or citizen rights for terrorists/enemy combatants, freedom - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unhindered by how government chooses to redefine those principles.

And that, in my opinion, is why Scott Brown was elected. If his campaign rhetoric turns out to be all smoke and mirrors--if he betrays the trust of the people--he will be scum by November and may be a very short-lived senator. I'm thinking (maybe hoping) he's the real deal though and others will follow his example.

He will "betray" anyone who is putting too much faith in his rhetoric, just like Obama "betrayed" the left by moving to the middle as soon as he was elected. He's a politician - a good one, but a good politician doesn't mean a good person. It means he knows the system, and how to work it. I don't know how it'll end up, but I wouldn't put my faith in him.

Maybe he will betray us. Maybe he won't. But I choose to trust those who have not given us reason not to trust them.

Addendum:

From my perspective, Obama campaigned strongly as a centrist but has governed mostly far left of his campaign rhetoric. In your perspective he campaigned as a leftist and then veered to the center after the election.

Interesting, huh?