The overreaction on tha MA election is astounding

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is a repudiation of the track Obama and Pelosi and Reid have taken us down. Plain and simple. Hopefully this wakes them up and they come back to Earth.. unfortunately, I thinnk this is really who they are. They may tune it back a notch, but they are still radicals at their core.

They are probably seething thinking that we're even more stupid than they anticipated.

 

[Liability]

The Democrats never had a supermajority. That has been myth perpetuated by pretty much everyone from all quarters.

They did. It was no myth. If you need evidence that they HAD it, but no longer do -- then count the votes in the Senate FOR their version of the Health Care crap bill and the votes against. Yup. They had it.

Now, it's gone.

If the Democrats had a supermajority, why couldn't they pass a public option, which is popular, and was passed by the House?

Not all members of a supermajority have to march in lockstep. The public option is controversial for a reason and even members of the supermajority have the right to take note of that fact. The fact that the supermajority is not a monolithic voting block in all things doesn't change the fact that it exists.

If the Democrats had a supermajority, why was the independent Lieberman counted as part of that supermajority:

Lieberman who:

1. Beat the real Democrat to get re-elected.

Because the Democratics were savvy enough to recognize that if it takes some horse-trading to GET their supermajority, then they WILL engage in horse-trading. Lieberman is a solid liberal Democratic EXCEPT for a couple of issues (like national security matters) and his deviation from the group-think mentality of the liberal Democratics caused them to treat him poorly in the first place. To their chagrin, payback was a bitch and costly. But they swallowed their pride, paid the price and achieved their supermajority.

2. Got 70% of the CT Republican vote to get re-elected.

So? Liberal Democratics got STUCK on Lieberman's determination to vote his conscience on the national security matters. That very same point of view GOT Lieberman cross-party support. Too bad for you liberal Democratics that you are one-dimensional. It made you have to engage in horse-trading to GET the supermajority!

3. Endorsed the Republican John McCain for president.

Again, so what? McCain, quite unlike President Obama, was a more staunch supporter of national security measures that you liberoidal Democratics loathed. After you guys treated an otherwise SOLID lib like dogshit, and he trounced your stupid asses anyway, why the fuck wouldn't he support the person more in line with his OWN thinking on that obviously crucial matter? It did make him an entity OUTSIDE of the standard group-think liberal Democrat fold. GREAT! And again, that means you dopes had to haggle to GET his support to obtain the supermajority! And it worked. You guys GOT it.... and now you've lost it!

Supermajority my ass. A myth.

Wrong. The Supermajority was clearly there. Your denial is silly and quite baseless. But it no longer matters. You tools blew it. It's gone. Thank GOD!

 

[NYcarbineer]

They did. It was no myth. If you need evidence that they HAD it, but no longer do -- then count the votes in the Senate FOR their version of the Health Care crap bill and the votes against. Yup. They had it.

Now, it's gone.

If the Democrats had a supermajority, why couldn't they pass a public option, which is popular, and was passed by the House?

Not all members of a supermajority have to march in lockstep. The public option is controversial for a reason and even members of the supermajority have the right to take note of that fact. The fact that the supermajority is not a monolithic voting block in all things doesn't change the fact that it exists.



Because the Democratics were savvy enough to recognize that if it takes some horse-trading to GET their supermajority, then they WILL engage in horse-trading. Lieberman is a solid liberal Democratic EXCEPT for a couple of issues (like national security matters) and his deviation from the group-think mentality of the liberal Democratics caused them to treat him poorly in the first place. To their chagrin, payback was a bitch and costly. But they swallowed their pride, paid the price and achieved their supermajority.



So? Liberal Democratics got STUCK on Lieberman's determination to vote his conscience on the national security matters. That very same point of view GOT Lieberman cross-party support. Too bad for you liberal Democratics that you are one-dimensional. It made you have to engage in horse-trading to GET the supermajority!

3. Endorsed the Republican John McCain for president.

Again, so what? McCain, quite unlike President Obama, was a more staunch supporter of national security measures that you liberoidal Democratics loathed. After you guys treated an otherwise SOLID lib like dogshit, and he trounced your stupid asses anyway, why the fuck wouldn't he support the person more in line with his OWN thinking on that obviously crucial matter? It did make him an entity OUTSIDE of the standard group-think liberal Democrat fold. GREAT! And again, that means you dopes had to haggle to GET his support to obtain the supermajority! And it worked. You guys GOT it.... and now you've lost it!

Supermajority my ass. A myth.

Wrong. The Supermajority was clearly there. Your denial is silly and quite baseless. But it no longer matters. You tools blew it. It's gone. Thank GOD!

You just refuted yourself (in the bolded text). If it's a supermajority in NAME only it's not a supermajority.

The cheering today is that now the Republican minority has the 1 extra vote needed to obstruct the majority.

 

[CMike]

This is my favorite part of Brown's victory speech

"And the message we need to send in dealing with terrorists: Our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them and not lawyers to defend them"

 

[CMike]

Since it has been said that Mr. Brown is not exactly a standard bearer for Conservatism, the full results of this Massachusetts Miracle is not quite clear.

This is a fair statement. This is less a victory for Conservatives as it is a victory for Independents. Folks that think there's an army of Conservative voters in Massachusets are insane. What happened is that independents turned on the Democratic nominee.

That in the end is more terrifying for the DNC than a clear cut Conservative victory. If independents are turning, even "safe" seats could end up in play.

On the other hand, some implications DO seem to be pretty clear already.

The Health Care "bill" which WAS being cobbled together by the liberal Democratics is now in serious trouble. Yes; it is true, the Democrat "leadership" could decide to ignore the message that the majority of voters in Massachusetts just sent, and try to cram some version of that misguided "bill" through Congress (and by using any one of several possible parliamentary type techniques to get that accomplished). But if the innate common sense imposed on Congresscritters by the discipline of having to run for re-election works, the "leadership" might not be as able at this point to pull it off.

It ups the stakes. Reid can now tell Lieberman and the Blue Dogs that they have to vote for the bill right now or face being stripped of their committee memberships. For Lieberman, that could be the end. Without his influence to bring back pork to his home district he could be facing defeat in the next election.

It all comes down to how forcefully Reid wants to push this in the Senate. I think he could pass it quickly, but it would be ill advised at this point.

It is also pretty clear that the voters of EVEN a liberal Democrat dominated state like Massachusetts HAVE indeed sent a message.

That message being: You're losing the Independents.

The GOP lost the independents and found themselves out on their ear in 2006 and 2008. The DNC has to change or they'll be in deep trouble in 2010 and 2012.

Suddenly finding themselves one vote shy of a SuperMajority, the liberal Democratics are now confronted with the consequences of their leadership's appalling lack of concern with the will of the electorate. If you don't think there are consequences in what happened yesterday, you are deluding yourselves.

The message got sent and it has been received loud and clear by the folks in Washington who are obliged to pay attention to those things.

The big debate will be what that message is.

The Democratic base is ticked off because even with a 60 seat majority the Democrats couldn't seem to act on their agenda. Take health care. What's coming out of this mess is a disaster, pure and simple. Requiring health care coverage while failing to produce a public option is a windfall for big insurance companies, pure and simple. The voters know this and are ticked off.... at least on the left.

As far as the Right goes, its clear how they feel. At the same time they're willing to back Palin so who cares what they think.

The Independents are the mixed bag. Did they turn because of the outright corruption and double dealing that a few Blue Dogs required? Why does the mandate the Democrats were handed in 2008 seem to have been revoked in one of the bluest of blue states?

This is essentially the same crisis of identity the Republicans faced in 2006. Do you lean more to your base to keep them happy and in line and risk pushing moderates into the other camp, or steer towards the middle and make no one happy?

I think Reid and Obama need to be careful how much they try to strong arm the moderate democrats. Otherwise, they won't pass anything.

Brown campaigned on a clear conservative message

1) Across the board tax cuts

2) Strong national security. Not giving rights to foreign terrorists.

Brown's message was solid conservative. And he won- solidly. In MA of all places.

 

[CMike]

If the Democrats had a supermajority, why couldn't they pass a public option, which is popular, and was passed by the House?

Not all members of a supermajority have to march in lockstep. The public option is controversial for a reason and even members of the supermajority have the right to take note of that fact. The fact that the supermajority is not a monolithic voting block in all things doesn't change the fact that it exists.



Because the Democratics were savvy enough to recognize that if it takes some horse-trading to GET their supermajority, then they WILL engage in horse-trading. Lieberman is a solid liberal Democratic EXCEPT for a couple of issues (like national security matters) and his deviation from the group-think mentality of the liberal Democratics caused them to treat him poorly in the first place. To their chagrin, payback was a bitch and costly. But they swallowed their pride, paid the price and achieved their supermajority.



So? Liberal Democratics got STUCK on Lieberman's determination to vote his conscience on the national security matters. That very same point of view GOT Lieberman cross-party support. Too bad for you liberal Democratics that you are one-dimensional. It made you have to engage in horse-trading to GET the supermajority!



Again, so what? McCain, quite unlike President Obama, was a more staunch supporter of national security measures that you liberoidal Democratics loathed. After you guys treated an otherwise SOLID lib like dogshit, and he trounced your stupid asses anyway, why the fuck wouldn't he support the person more in line with his OWN thinking on that obviously crucial matter? It did make him an entity OUTSIDE of the standard group-think liberal Democrat fold. GREAT! And again, that means you dopes had to haggle to GET his support to obtain the supermajority! And it worked. You guys GOT it.... and now you've lost it!

Supermajority my ass. A myth.

Wrong. The Supermajority was clearly there. Your denial is silly and quite baseless. But it no longer matters. You tools blew it. It's gone. Thank GOD!

You just refuted yourself (in the bolded text). If it's a supermajority in NAME only it's not a supermajority.

The cheering today is that now the Republican minority has the 1 extra vote needed to obstruct the majority.

Actually you just refuted yourself. If the republican minority didn't have that 1 extra vote than the democrats had a supermajority.

And they should obstruct the majority, because the majority in congress (i.e. the democrats) don't care what the majority of the american people want.

 

[CMike]

The Democrats never had a supermajority. That has been myth perpetuated by pretty much everyone from all quarters.

They did. It was no myth. If you need evidence that they HAD it, but no longer do -- then count the votes in the Senate FOR their version of the Health Care crap bill and the votes against. Yup. They had it.

Now, it's gone.

If the Democrats had a supermajority, why couldn't they pass a public option, which is popular, and was passed by the House?

If the Democrats had a supermajority, why was the independent Lieberman counted as part of that supermajority:

Lieberman who:

1. Beat the real Democrat to get re-elected.

2. Got 70% of the CT Republican vote to get re-elected.

3. Endorsed the Republican John McCain for president.

Supermajority my ass. A myth.

They have been working on it, but they gotta make sure that their special interests groups are exempted from anything that they don't like, first.

 

[Oldandtired]

Funny thing. I see some say this is a victory for conservatives. Others say it is a victory for independents. Others say a loss for liberals.

As a conservative I say this:

A "super majority" is not oin the best interest of the people as a whole. A super majority with very left leaning majority leaders is not good for anyone but the far left...at best, 25% of the people.

Brown's victory is a victory for the system. A victory for the government and a victory for the people.

The only true losers are the far left.

But they were already losers in my book anyway.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It is very entertaining to observe.

How would you describe my personal reactions this morning on the board UScitizen?

 

[Zander]

The Democrats never had a supermajority. That has been myth perpetuated by pretty much everyone from all quarters.

They did. It was no myth. If you need evidence that they HAD it, but no longer do -- then count the votes in the Senate FOR their version of the Health Care crap bill and the votes against. Yup. They had it.

Now, it's gone.

If the Democrats had a supermajority, why couldn't they pass a public option, which is popular, and was passed by the House?

If the Democrats had a supermajority, why was the independent Lieberman counted as part of that supermajority:

Lieberman who:

1. Beat the real Democrat to get re-elected.

2. Got 70% of the CT Republican vote to get re-elected.

3. Endorsed the Republican John McCain for president.

Supermajority my ass. A myth.

The reason Democrats failed is because they set their agenda too far to the left. Americans, even liberals, instinctively know that Socialism is evil. If PelosiReidObama had set a more moderate agenda they could have passed Health Care incrementally.

 

[mmcpo]

With the Election now in the past the Left better take heed of what Americans want.......Or what we don't want i.e. Big Government, be told how to run our business or our life for that matter, and how to spend our money.
A clear message was sent to Pelosi, Reid and Obama, back off! Obama is 0 for 3. MA, VA and NJ, he campaigned in all three of these states and came up empty.
Healthcare is not a priority. Job’s are, giving our troops what they need to be successful and be able to come home to their families. e.g. It took no time at all to send troops into Haiti but it took months to deploy troops to Afghanistan, and you still didn’t give them what was needed.
The above mentioned work for the American people, when a employer tells their subordinates what they want, they better dam sure deliver or they are out the door. You don’t tell your employer we will do what ever it takes to accomplish our agenda. And that is what is trying to be dome by the Administration, Congress and the Senate.
The above band of mis-fits are shitting all over our Constitution.

 

[xotoxi]

It is very entertaining to observe.

You have to understand that America was only a few days from becoming a communist country.

However, the election of Scott Brown (a former Massachusetts State Senator) will now bring the country back to it's conservative roots.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It is very entertaining to observe.

You have to understand that America was only a few days from becoming a communist country.

However, the election of Scott Brown (a former Massachusetts State Senator) will now bring the country back to it's conservative roots.

I wish I didn't know you better toxi becuase I would be giving you soo much shit for that

this election got me listening to Rage again like I was a teenager

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FdF1dDlW-A&feature=related]YouTube - Take the Power Back[/ame]

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It is very entertaining to observe.

Pooh-poohing it might make you feel better, but it really doesn't make it better.

This was TED KENNEDY'S seat he held for 47 fucking years, you partisan hack dolt. This result was a repudiation, an insult to him -- the equivalent of pissing on his grave, and on his legacy.

You believe it's even possible to overstate it? Of course you don't, you just want to make yourself feel better about it, somehow.

Reality slaps you in the face, and you still deny its existence.

 

[txlonghorn]

It is very entertaining to observe.

That's like calling a severed arm a minor cut.

But YOU are very entertaining to observe.

Squirm much?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It is very entertaining to observe.

That's like calling a severed arm a minor cut.

But YOU are very entertaining to observe.

Squirm much?

"The system worked."

 

[blastoff]

I really think the outcome of Brown's election is likely to reverberate negatively among some Democrats regarding support for ObamaCare and other initiatives in Barry's agenda.

This was a stunning defeat. Losing the recent governor races in VA and NJ were bad, but they could plausibly rationalize them away, at least in their minds. But virtually no Democrat just a couple of short weeks ago could fathom losing a Senate seat in the bluest of blue states that was occupied by their liberal lion Teddy for nearly a half century and in whose legacy they've dedicated their health care scheme.

Now though they've been hit right between the eyes by a voters' revolt. And, some will be thinking, if it can happen in MA - to Teddy's old seat - it can happen anywhere. No one is safe if they continue to ignore the will of the people and support the insanity of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al. Look for some House and Senate support to start to wane and eventually abandon ObamaCare as it's currently construed. In fact, warnings are already being sounded. Evan Bayh got the ball rolling already last night:

"There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this,” Bayh told ABC News, but “if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up...Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country -- that's not going to work too well."

Obama and those who support his insanity have painted themselves into a very tight corner now, and their only hope is to change.

Looks like Bayh's got some company and I'd bet there's more to come. Brown's victory is gonna give some of them the much needed cover to start bucking ObamaReidPelosi, or face the wrath of the voters come November.

Sen. Jim Web (D-Va):

"In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process," Webb said in a statement. "To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."

Are you listening Harry...Nancy...Barry...

 

[bodecea]

It was a historically significant victory which overturned a traditionally Democatic seat.

Does it signal a 2010 rout by the republicans? Perhaps not, but it was a wakeup call for the Dems

I agree....and I look forward to watching the newly elected Senator keep his campaign promises to the people of Massachusetts.

Just to satisfy My curiosity. Do you also look forward to Mr. Obama keeping his campaign promises?

Absolutely...as I have said after November if you want to look up my posts. And further for the record, the Gay Community (myself included) is starting to get impatient with his promises to us over DADT, etc.

 

[bodecea]

It is very entertaining to observe.

Pooh-poohing it might make you feel better, but it really doesn't make it better.

This was TED KENNEDY'S seat he held for 47 fucking years, you partisan hack dolt. This result was a repudiation, an insult to him -- the equivalent of pissing on his grave, and on his legacy.

You believe it's even possible to overstate it? Of course you don't, you just want to make yourself feel better about it, somehow.

Reality slaps you in the face, and you still deny its existence.

This MIGHT be as shocking as many want to make it if Kennedy himself lost the seat to a Republican. Does anyone think that would have happened? Anyone?


This is a reset.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It is very entertaining to observe.

Pooh-poohing it might make you feel better, but it really doesn't make it better.

This was TED KENNEDY'S seat he held for 47 fucking years, you partisan hack dolt. This result was a repudiation, an insult to him -- the equivalent of pissing on his grave, and on his legacy.

You believe it's even possible to overstate it? Of course you don't, you just want to make yourself feel better about it, somehow.

Reality slaps you in the face, and you still deny its existence.

This MIGHT be as shocking as many want to make it if Kennedy himself lost the seat to a Republican. Does anyone think that would have happened? Anyone?


This is a reset.

Teddy would have won that seat in 2010 even if he was comatose and on life support.

Which further proves my point.