Jump to content

Come on, Scott Brown!

Recommended Posts

Hard to believe a Republican could have a chance at a Senate seat in Massachusetts, but it looks like he might pull it off! This wouldn't be a change in the tide, this would be a tsunami!


Poll: Brown makes gains in Mass. Senate Race


(CNN) - A new poll released Monday afternoon indicates that Republican Scott Brown has a 7-point edge over Democrat Martha Coakley in Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat.


The survey indicates 97 percent of likely Republican voters are backing Brown, independent voters supporting him 64 to 32 percent over Coakley, and nearly one out of 4 Democrats also supporting Brown.


In other news (why am I not surprised)...

MSNBC's Ed Schultz: I'd cheat to keep Brown from winning


SCHULTZ (23:02): I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't matter to the Dems. They are hell-bent on this health-care mess and are not going to stop. They will do whatever it takes to force this down our throats.


We can only hope it will give the Republicans some spine if he wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Next on the list, Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer. Ben Nelson is probably gone, as well.



We (conservatives) could only be so lucky! They think that is the only way to stay in power (pass the bill), when the reality is that will guarantee their defeat. And even if they go thru reconciliation, the special deal the unions worked out to avoid the Cadillac tax on their health plans is gone. Obama is a lame duck just one year into his presidency.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Since the healthcare bill will destroy the American medical system, their stock values would naturally go down. The election of Scott Brown may lead to the demise of a bad bill which would be to the benefit of health care stocks. So investors would naturally trade them up in anticipation of the win by Brown. This does not imply any sort of nefarious relationship only reasonable expectations.




I can only hope that you are correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Didn't mean to imply an direct relationship between the companies and Brown's campaign. But I think it's a clear indication there are very large financial interests on the part of insurance companies and health care companies to maintain the status quo, where they can cherry pick who they cover, and charge high fees. So yes, their stocks would go up.


Ironically, State Rep Brown, was very much in favor of the Massachusetts Health Care system(which is very much like the proposed national system) when it was promoted by then Governor Mitt Romney®. Romney was one of the few early Republican backers of Brown. Other than Mitt, the National Republican party was visibly absent in his campaign, in stark contrast to his opponent's. In fact one of Brown's arguments against the national health care bill was that here in Mass we have a plan that covers 98% of our people. We've got a health care plan that works, let the other states fend for themselves.


Coakley also ran a totally inept campaign. She was invisible until the last few days when she finally realized she could lose. She took the election for granted, and many folks resented the sense of entitlement that seemed to be there.


Contrary to impressions outside the state, Mass is not nearly as liberal as folks believe. The largest block of registered voters are registered as independents. 4 out of 5 of our last Governors have been Republican. John McCain has won every primary he's run here. We'll have to see how conservative Brown really is. The state Democrats seemed to have forgotten this. If Brown turns out to be an New England independant Republican in the Bill Weld, Olympia Snow, Warren Rudman tradition, I'll be satisfied.






Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll freely admit that I'm not sure which health care bill we looked like ending up with.

I am sure that not doing anything serves no good.

More and more it seems to me that the Republican agenda is one which is all about making government fail.

Many Republicans seem to have fixed in their brain the idea that the market is always right and we all will be better off if government just butts out and we all allow the market to dictate what happens and what happens next.

While I don't know about everyone else, I do know that the market hasn't served me that well.

While I'm happy that a long last the Republicans do have something to cheer about (Lord knows they need it, as they haven't had anything for a very, very long time!)

Anyone with a memory a little bigger than a gnat will remember the mess the last administration made of things.


All this fuss about the guy trying to blow up a plane on Christmas day and the Republicans rush to blame the President?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember that we had a Republican President when the 9/11 terrorist attack took place.


The Republican record on Health care?

Do we dare look back at the Medicare Modernization Act?

Only One month after it was signed the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.

I bet my last dollar that there were a lot of back room deals and a lot of promises made by the drug companies to get a bill that prohibits the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies.


I wonder why Scott Brown was never seen campaigning with George Walker Bush?

Could there be a reason?

I wonder?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he won and the Rasmussen poll taken yesterday http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform indicates that 56% of us don't want this bill and only 38% support it. That ought to tell you something.


Brent, obviously, there are going to be a lot of Dem seats changing hands in November. I hope two of them are Reid and Pelosi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eammon, both parties stink. We can point out bad legislation passed by the party we don't like, ad infinitum. Do you like to "harken back?" Sure, let's do that. How far do we go? I'll see your harkening back to GWB's admin and raise you the Clinton 8 years, then you can raise me Elder Bush's term, and Reagan, then I'll raise you Carter. Little is accomplished -- except maybe it backs up my premise, both parties stink.


There are a lot of people who don't like this proposed health bill for various reasons: they don't understand what's in it, it may cut their profits, it may dump them out of a plan they like, they may pay more, they may be FORCED to buy a product they don't want, it goes on and on.


Just because this health care bill is teed up, doesn't mean it should be driven down the fairway. If this guy Brown makes it possible for the Republicans to filibuster this thing, in my mind that's a good thing. The Dems were poised to pass something that would have serious consequences. And in what I have read about this, the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages.


Maybe I posted this here before, but I am old enough to recall when George Wallace ran for President and I remember something he said about Congress and the 2 party system: "In terms of legislation passed, there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans."


SCOUTINGAGAIN: Thanks for your summary. Coakley was involved on the prosecution side of the Amirault case in Mass when it was under review, after they were in prison. Do you think that had any effect, was it mentioned in the campaign? have people forgotten about it? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Coakley's work as a prosecutor had little impact on the race. Frankly, after the primaries, she was nearly invisible up until about a week before the general election. Brown worked hard. Did much of it on his own. Had little support from the national party until it looked like he had a chance. Even though I don't particularly think he's a great candidate to be a Senator, based on the two campaigns, he deserved the win. I'm hoping he fits in with the New England Republican contingent and sends the message, if you want to attract Independent voters, you need to run candidates in the McCain, Rudman, Snow mold as opposed to the Palin, Bush, Neocon candidates. At least in states that generally go blue or are swing states. Wouldn't be suprised to see more Blue Dog Dems switch parties.



Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a pretty good point there, scoutingagain.


Jim Webb (D-Va) is supposedly backpedaling on Obamacare due to (legitimate) concerns about its popularity in Virginia (I've got family in Virginia, according to them there's some fierce opposition to the whole thing). He used to be in Reagan's cabinet, could switch back if the going got tough.


Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the appointee Senator of the Accidental Governor, is facing the possibility of some serious opposition should Harold Ford (former D-Tenn) mount a primary challenge. Though Ford has "re-evaluated" several of his old positions (i.e.: sold-out), he's still more conservative than Gilly. And let's face it, as inept as they are, you can never count out the NY Republican Party. The trick for them is to secure the backing of the NY Conservative Party (Yes, I know, it's shocking - NY has an actual "Conservative Party"), as no state-wide GOP candidate has won in NY without the backing of the Conservatives.


It is indeed an interesting commentary on our state of affairs when George "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever" Wallace is right on the money with his observations on the business of Washington, D.C. (Thank you frankj for your quote)

I, for one, have always considered Will Rogers to be especially prescient with his thoughts on our political system, such as this gem: "Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?"


(Edited for Grammar)(This message has been edited by BklynEagle)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...