Republicans should not start the party just yet, the Brown victory over Coakley has more to do with a revulsion expressed by the electorate toward the status quo, POLITICS as practiced in America. The election results were a victory for America & Americans, not exclusively Republicans.
The Republicans are already calling it the beginning of a comeback, for them, not America. The Kennedy clan does not own Massachusetts nor any senate seat, although they thought they did. The last thing America needs is a COMEBACK to politics as usual, Republican or Democrat.
The Democrat Party acted like pigs after the Obama victory. The Democrats got taught a good lesson, it sounds as though the Republicans have learned nothing from their defeats in the past. I think both parties should use the Jackass as their symbol.
Health 'Scare', Democrat arrogance, failing economy, give away's of tax payer money, immigration, war, there were many factors in the 'Republican' victory.
Contrary to what Rush says, there is a need for a powerful third party in America, a party that has the best interest of Americans in mind. Neither the Democrat nor the Republican parties fit the bill.
I have a name for the third party, cal it the American Party. A party for all not just a select few.
The Democrats have Con. Scott Murphy, the Republicans have Sen. Scott Brown, what does America have? Not much yet!
Ira
PS I am a registered Conservative, I would be a Libertarians if they really existed, the 'minor' parties are for the most part little whores who suck up to the major parties & get patronage for their complicity in derailing democracy. Do not look to 'established' minor parties for guidance, they are part of the corruption.
be careful that this isn't some kind of smoke screen.....FOIL for their $$ contributions to either party.....this is usurping the American at it's best I think the WWW and new technology are leaving much to be decided on and centralizing all the changes appears to be the 'safest' route or the surest way to keep those at the top of the pyramid right there......SHOW ME THE $$ TRAIL......
.....this may just be some seasoning to make ANY change palatable to the public.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
George Will Dems should heed strong message from Mass. George Will is a nationally syndicated columnist.
“We are on the precipice of an achievement that’s eluded congresses and presidents for generations.” — President Barack Obama, Dec. 15, on health care legislation. Precipice, 1. a headlong fall or descent, esp. to a great depth. — Oxford English Dictionary Trying to guarantee Americans the thrill of the precipice, the president dashed to Massachusetts on Sunday, thereby conceding that he had already lost Tuesday’s Senate election, which had become a referendum on his signature program. By promising to cast the decisive 41st vote against the president’s health care legislation, the Republican candidate forced all congressional Democrats to contemplate this: Not even frenzied national mobilization of Democratic manpower and millions of dollars could rescue one of the safest Democratic seats in the national legislature from national dismay about the incontinent government expansion, of which that legislation is symptomatic. Because the legislation is frightening and unpopular, Democrats have had to resort to serial bribery to advance it. Massachusetts voted immediately after the corruption of exempting, until 2018, union members from the tax on highvalue health insurance plans. This tax was supposedly the crucial component of what supposedly was reform’s primary goal — reducing costs. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., thought Bill Clinton’s presidency was crippled by the 1993 decision to pursue health care reform rather than welfare reform. So slight was public enthusiasm for the former, Clinton’s program never even came to a vote in either the House or Senate, both controlled by Democrats. There was such fervor for welfare reform that in 1996, after two Clinton vetoes, he fi - nally signed the decade’s most important legislation. .............>>>>...............>>>>...............................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00900&AppName=1
Columnist wrong: Mass. vote wasn’t about Obamacare
In his Jan. 25 column, [“Democrats ignore wake-up call at their peril”] Charles Krauthammer would like us to believe that the election of Sen. [Scott] Brown in Massachusetts was a resounding rejection of “Obamacare,” the Democratic health care proposal. The author states that “an astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters called health care their top priority.” And that in a poll by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, 78 percent of Brown’s voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. The data above is sorely incomplete and the conclusions even fuzzier. It is highly likely at this point that no one knows precisely why Massachusetts voters elected Scott Brown. But what we do know is that Massachusetts health care is very important to Massachusetts voters — they voted for their own state health care program. So Obamacare’s passage, or not, would not severely affect them. Therefore I doubt Obamacare had much to do with Scott Brown’s election. By the way, the poll mentioned above, which says 78 percent of Brown’s voters intended to use their vote to stop Obamacare, was conducted by a fi rm that is a Republican opinion consulting firm.
If the Dems shove health-care thru Mr Isaac may have to change his tune in Nov 2010. Everyone who has seen and read the health-care bill in it's present form has said that it's a bad bill that will not lower health-care cost but will eventually cause them to go up while growing government in a big way.
So Obamacare’s passage, or not, would not severely affect them
Sure it would have ... they would be taxed appropriately for their own healthcare (as it stands) - and then have to contribute (ie. share the wealth) for the rest of the country. Their financial participation would most definitely "affect" them.
Sure it would have ... they would be taxed appropriately for their own healthcare (as it stands) - and then have to contribute (ie. share the wealth) for the rest of the country. Their financial participation would most definitely "affect" them.
You are absolutely correct. Their #1 b!tch was that they already pay for health care in their state. If obamacare passes, they would be hit with that cost as well.
Their 2nd b!tch was the government's spending like they had it to spend.
Putting a rep who is 'against' national health care, in a seat that was previously occupied by a dem who spent his political life fighting for national health care, in the kennedy's own back yard.....speaks volumes!!
I have friends who live in Mass and they didn't even like the state healthcare imposed on them. They said that the cost is going up continually and so are their taxes. They told me that their state government iis sorry they even did it. IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Silver lining in Democrats’ loss of Mass. Senate seat
There is a small ray of hope for Democrats in the Massachusetts Senate loss: The myth that the Democrats control the Senate may finally be put to rest. DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut no longer bend the Senate to their individual desires — they have lost considerable leverage in a 59-vote majority. This may, in fact, make it easier for Democrats to come to terms with moderate Republicans for the good of the nation, as opposed to the good of the officeholder. Let’s hope so.
We are all tired of the DINO'S and RINO'S. That's why we choose the independents and vote out the incumbents.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The election of Sen. Brown in Massachusetts to the vacant Senate seat (the Gazette called it Ted Kennedy’s seat) has been blamed on ignorant or uninformed voters by the Gazette, liberal writers and the “progressive” politicians. In the Jan. 21 editorial "Mass miracle, 2010 style,” the Gazette said, referring to voters "perhaps because they often don’t know what they want." The paper further demonstrated its objectivity in this discussion by petulantly referring to Sen. Brown’s Cosmo appearance. On election night Chris Matthews said that the voters had been "deceived.” Sen. Landreau, D-La., picked up the old Democrat mantra when facing defeat — "We did not get our message across.” Both presume that the voters were not smart enough to understand the issues. The Gazette pronounced this a "perplexing election result” in that Bay State voters who are required to have government health care rejected a national plan similar to that in Massachusetts. The answer to this conundrum was suggested (perhaps inadvertently) by Froma Harrop’s Jan. 23 column. She wrote that "Massachusetts was the worst state in which to test the wider public’s feelings about national health reform." However, Ms. Harrop then described the situation in the Bay State: “The state has already cut benefits and raised taxes. A special commission is now urging a move away from expensive fee-for-service health care to a model that would pay groups of doctors and hospitals fixed sums to cover the patient for a year.” Then she wrote, “The Massachusetts program could serve as a national model. Pass universal coverage now, fix it later.” Based on Ms. Harrop’s thoughtful observations, I submit that only Massachusetts voters have the experience to judge the effects of the progressive program for health care. They have experienced the loss of benefits and increased costs. Now they face a plan to fix physicians’ fees, which will certainly reduce the availability of health care. Can you say rationing?
Informed voters is exactly what the progressives don't want and that's why they try to silence any opposition to hide their plans from we the people and only want us to know what they tell us.
Logged
