Martha Coakley-Scott Brown Election (MA)

Remove all ads!

This has been getting a lot of press lately. It's the special election to replace Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate. Coakley is the Democrat and Brown is the Republican. Amazingly, Brown is polling very favorably, and may actually win this election that takes place today. (In fact, if polling numbers are anywhere near accurate, it would actually be an upset if Coakley won at this point.) Placing aside for a moment the absolute astonishment I have that the Dems may actually lose the seat that Kennedy occupied - in MA no less, one of the most liberal and Democrat leaning states in the US - is what this means for health care.

On the one hand, the people of MA may not really care one way or the other about health care reform, as they already have a state-wide policy in effect that is somewhat more progressive than the one that would take effect nationally. So, in a sense, they already got theirs, and can thumb their noses at everyone else.

This is what I don't get: Everyone is saying that if the Dems lose their 60-40 filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, it will mean the end of health care reform. That I don't agree with. Even in the case of a 59-41 majority, there's going to be something passed. First of all, that is a bigger majority than Bush ever enjoyed in his eight years in office. And by ever, I mean EVUH (as those from MA would say). And Bush did pretty much whatever he wanted for the first six years in office. Sure, they used reconciliation a lot, but stuff still got done.

The second point that Brown's vote may not come into play on health care reform, if the House simply approves the Senate version of the bill. While there is some doubt as to whether or not that will happen, if the House approves the Senate version it never goes back to the Senate for another vote (as they already voted to approve this version).

Still, I cannot believe it even comes to this. As little as a couple of weeks ago, the thought of the Dems losing Kennedy's seat - and there has been no figure as iconic to the Democratic Party as Kennedy over the years - was incomprehensible. This should have been a lay-up. I didn't even think it was possible to screw this up.

 

Her gaffs will go down as shining examples of how to lose a 30 point lead.

- Her campaign misspelled Massachusetts on posters.

-On foriegn policy credentials: "I have a sister who lives overseas, and she's been in England and now lives in the Middle East."

- She described Curt Shilling as a Yankee's fan. Granted her spokesman said it was a deadpan joke, but when you looks at the interview ... well. Curt may have said it best, "I've been called a lot of things...but never, I mean never, could anyone make the mistake of calling me a Yankee fan. Well, check that, if you didn't know what the hell is going on in your own state maybe you could..."

-I didn't catch the name but someone stumping for her called her the wrong name throughout the speech.

Perhaps she should change her name to Quayle.

 

The Dems are just so good at this. It's part of their patented 3-step plan:

1.) Pick up machine gun.
2.) Aim at foot.
3.) Hold trigger until you empty the clip.

 

Sad thing is, they'd probably miss!

I will weigh in on one point, though - SOMETHING more will get passed in terms of health care. God only knows what good it'll be.

 

Hey, at least she didn't say she can see England from her house. She's just a terrible candidate. And from what I understand, they both are, but Scott Brown has really cleaned up his image. Don't forget, MA gave us Mitt as well, and this guy seems almost a carbon copy of Romney.

When I heard about this, I was really excited. Like many liberals, I despise the health care bill that came out of the Senate, and is being used as the blueprint for "reform," and is nothing more than a give-away to the big insurance companies. I was hoping this Brown guy would win and that the Republicans would filibuster it to death; that way they could get the blame, politically.

But after finding out about Brown, he seems like nothing more than a fraud. This guy has "Corporate America Handout Time" written all over him. Too bad he's not a real conservative. We could send MA Ron Paul, but we would still be stuck with another "Mr. Goodhair," (Rick Perry), as the late Molly Ivans called him. God, I miss Molly: a voice of reason - in Texas!


http://www.creators.com/opinion/molly-ivins/molly-ivins-november-30.html

 

I think I generally agree with the gist. It's amazing that the seat Kennedy held for, what, 40 years, could be lost right after him. It's amazing that they could loose a seat in Massachusetts, one of the, if not the, most liberal states in the US. It's amazing that the only candidate they could find at this crucial time is someone as bad a Coakley and her team!

As for healthcare reform, I doubt the House will just pass the Senate version. Even with the threat of a Senate fillibuster, I don't think the House Dems will give up their ideas and just give the Senate a freebie. I don't think it'd be healthy for the US, or for the Democratic party if they do. That being said, at this point, I do think some form of healthcare reform is unavoidable. Even if the Republicans had a slim majority, I think they'd have to pass something.

 

Yes, the state that give us Mitt. A liberal bunch that is....

 

Actually she's a great candidate with all the right credentials. From what I've heard she's usually quite savvy and an excellent attorney general for the state. She won handily with no gaffs in the primary -- her behavior and gaffs at this juncture are quite odd. But then again, Quayle was well spoken and a highly regarded senator before he joined the Bush team.

 

Running for Senate, much like prez, is much more demanding than AG. I believe that it is a much tougher test, and the results speak for themselves. It's much like Kerry or Kennedy; they are both good at running for the Senate, but they did less than stellar as candidates for prez. Perhaps I should have qualified that statement with: "She's a terrible candidate for the Senate."

 

This has been the dirtiest political campaign I have ever seen. Being from MA which is so overwhelmingly Democrat I have never been able to understand the chaos and mudslinging that goes on in "swing" states. I'm not sure that either Obama or McCain even bought a single television ad in MA in 2008. Coakley has run such a dirty campaign, I'm not sure how even her supporters can look her in the eye. It clearly is backfiring on her. Apparantly, she thinks she is running against Bush and Cheney and the word Republican. Brown on the hand has kept his commercials about him and what he is going to do when he gets to Washington. He has also been very successful at convincing people that Coakley will just be a "rubber stamp", which has been a very successful tactic.

I am on the fence as to the ramifications if Brown manages to win. The Dem's may still be able to pass a health care bill, but at least he should be able to make sure "cap and trade" dies. Will a Brown victory be the early precursor of the armeggedon the Dems are facing in November 2010, or will it give the Dems enough time to abandon some of their policies to try to salvage November 2010? This I haven't figured out.

There are plenty of fools who are already trying to blame this election on Coakley as opposed to it being a national referendum. I don't know of many Brown supporters who are really anti-Coakley. They flat out just aren't happy with the direction Washington is taking the country and this is their one and only chance to try to send a message. If ultra-blue MA has had enough hopefully it will send a very chilling message to a lot of politicians.

Bill Clinton had it correct, when he said "It's the economy stupid". When times are good, idealists have the time and money to try to create a better society. When times are not so good and that "better society" is going to cost people money they don't have, it doesn't take much to make the taxpayers angry.

I'm going to the polls after work and Brown can count on my vote.

 

Call me a fool if you wish, Snook, it hardly matters in the scheme of things, but this is about local politics, even from the way you describe it. If Kennedy was running do you think he would have the same "national" problem? Somehow, I don't think so. Only partisans, like ourselves, believe that all elections are about "conservative versus liberals." Often, it's not all about just right/left ideology.

 

Kennedy was a different breed of animal. Here in MA he was treated as royalty.

 

I thought the Kennedys were as close to royalty as it was possible to be in the states, heck they seemed to be treated more like royalties than many actually royal people.

 

Joacqin, ask a Texan that question.

Royalty? Never. Well-known and respected, even if grudgingly, yes.

 

Coakley's a total idiot who only won in the primaries because she's a woman. Her primary campaign was little more than "I am woman, hear me roar". But now it's turned into "I am woman, hear me squeak".

She's an idiot who thinks that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan, who thinks that Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan, and who insulted Red Sox fans, and can't spell the name of her own state.

The Dems really screwed up by nominating this brain dead moron. There were some other perfectly capable liberals in Mass. who would have been able to run a competent campaign.

---------- Added 0 hours, 17 minutes and 8 seconds later... ----------

Her ads call Brown "Republican Scott Brown" so much that you'd think that his first name was "Republican".




[/quote]Brown on the hand has kept his commercials about him and what he is going to do when he gets to Washington. He has also been very successful at convincing people that Coakley will just be a "rubber stamp", which has been a very successful tactic.[/quote]

I don't think that Brown has had to try very hard... Every Coakley commercial that I've heard makes her sound like a Democrat rubber stamp to me.

Yeah, I don't know this either. Some have speculated though that if Brown did win, it could have a major impact on the "blue dog" democrats who might fear that if a republican could win in the bluest of "blue" states, their seats might be extremely vulnerable if they continue to support the health care DEform legislation. I have little doubt that the true blue liberals in Congress will be unaffected, but the blue dog moderate/conservative dems could get very much more nervous about their seats and vote against many of the things that the libs are trying to push.

Snook, IF Brown wins this election is will be because both items, i.e. Coakley being a total moron AND it being a "national referendum". One is not a "fool" for thinking that Coakley is a moron who has screwed up her campaign with her incompetence. There are almost certainly at least a half dozen or more well known lib Dems in Mass who could have run a vastly more competent campaign than this moron. Rep Lynch from South Boston, for one. or Joe Kennedy. Not saying that they would have "certainly" won, but they would have been vastly more competent campaigners.

Good for you, Snook!

 

Conservacrats have been peeing on themselves since health care reform has been proposed. They much rather prefer the insurance companies continue to ration health care to the American people, rather than the government, since the insurance companies supply them with much needed, ready cash. It took a lot of nerve for Baucus and the conservacrats to push this give-away to the insurance companies on liberals, who were expecting real reform. I guess the joke was on us all the time.

 

As a matter of fact, I would VASTLY prefer that the private sector handle heath insurance than the corrupt, incompetent government.

Liberals aren't trying to "reform" health care... they're trying push for a government takeover of 1/6th of the US economy and to gain the power that comes with that, and in the process, destroy ... DESTROY health care in America. These are the same morons that pushed banking and accounting laws that were the root cause of the banking meltdown... and now they want to do the same thing to health care.

 

No, sorry, they are not. Unless you consider Phil Gramm, and his wife, insurance company "fat cat," of Texas to be one of those "liberals" who pushed banking and accounting laws that caused the meltdown. You really should take a look at the facts. Here is some help for you:

http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/m...phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx

Oh, didn't you get the news? They are largely the same thing. Welcome to America: The world's largest corporate welfare state...enjoy your stay!

 

Cry me a river, why don't you? The Democrats have tried to do nothing of the sort. They initially tried (and failed) to pass an entirely optional public option for individuals who do not have employer-sponsored health care but will nevertheless be required to purchase insurance under the government mandate to buy insurance. When that failed, they instead sought to implement a budget-neutral and entirely optional medicare buy-in for Americans age 55 and over. To force the insurance companies to play by the same rules that every other American business plays by, the democrats have also sought (and failed) to repeal the anti-trust exemption medical insurers currently enjoy. A single payer solution, which I support -- and which could reasonably be construed as a government takeover of the insurance industry (but not the entire healthcare system) -- was never even on the table.

Please explain how allowing people over 55 to buy in to medicare would constitute a government takeover of medicine. Please explain how offering a public option purchasable* only by those individuals that do not already have employer-sponsored health care would constitute a government takeover of our healthcare system.

* A key word, that. The public option proposed was never supposed to be free. It was, in fact, supposed to compete with the private sector on the private sector's terms.

You appear to have a short memory. We've been de-regulating essentially without pause since Reagan. De-regulation passed under Reagan was approved by a democratic congress. De-regulation passed under Clinton was passed by a republican congress . Bush and his republican congress continued to de-regulate the banking industry even as the wheels were falling off the bus. The truth is that both parties share the blame*. No one sounded the alarm when they should have. No one applied the breaks when they should have. The banking failures were caused by government inaction. As far as health-care reform goes, the democrats haven't been suggesting government inaction, so you are invoking an apples-to-oranges comparison. Inaction is the republican plan, remember?

* But it isn't necessarily shared equally. When the team isn't putting any points on the board, it always reflects more strongly on the Quarterback than it does on the offensive line, the running backs, receivers, tight end, the kicker, even the coach -- because the Quarterback is the one who has the ball. When the **** hit the fan, Bush had the ball.

 

*snip* I really wonder why the only part of government conservatives apparently love is the armed forces. I say that because the armed forces are a huge organisation that must share all the despicable things that conservatives love to hate about 'big government' (or big bureaucracies in general, as in large firms, but heaven forbid me mentioning that) - waste, incompetence, red tape, welfare for the employees at taxpayer's expense, blah blah blah. It is loved nevertheless, because of the selflessness, integrity, work ethos and principled courage of soldiers and all that.

Now of course, such traits cannot possibly exist in employees of other government agencies.

Market good. Government Bad. *snip*

I really wonder where that pagan cult comes from that assigns to the miraculous free market beatifying powers.