Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » No Discussion About Coakley VS Brown? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: No Discussion About Coakley VS Brown?
0rnery
Member
Member # 398

 - posted      Profile for 0rnery   Email 0rnery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gee, what a surprise.

Go ahead and keep hiding your head in the sand...

Posts: 384 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Umm, I don't think anyone is hiding their head in the sand. Everyone I know who cares about politics has been phone banking for one candidate or another, urging people to vote for their candidate. I think everyone who is politically aware in Massachusetts knows this is close.

There's a pretty clear policy differential between the two, and Massachusetts has a huge chunk of independents. (Over half of voters are not party affiliated I believe). Those independents are breaking for Brown right now, and I suspect this is largely because of Patrick, who is moving closer and closer to Romneyian levels of popularity, as well as the fact that electing Obama did not instantly fix the economy. *Shrug* Massachusetts is very liberal, but our long string of Republican Governors should show that we don't blindly vote Democrat.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0rnery
Member
Member # 398

 - posted      Profile for 0rnery   Email 0rnery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Topic is directed at the "base" of the The Ornery American Forum. Not surprised it isn't being discussed.
Posts: 384 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't want to jinx it.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Appears to be a very weak Democratic candidate.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Get bringer in here to translate Ev's comment into hulkspeak. That will get the discussion moving.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually a lot more interested in the Wisconsin governor's race right now, not least because I actually live in Wisconsin.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FOX news ran a story last night about Coakley. The man interviewed claims when Coakley was DA, her office dismissed a Grand Jury that was investigated a sexual assault against a twenty-eight-month-old child. Apparently, the attacker had assaulted her with a hot curling iron. The little girl spent a month in the hospital. The lawyer for the mother past away last year, but he always believed Coakley was acting on behalf of a big-wig union representative, who was a heavy contributor to the Coakley campaign, and also father to the attacker.
The lawyer felt so strongly against the misjudgment in this case he ran against Coakley in 2008. He lost, and since died. The attacker (who also was a police man) is now serving a double-life sentence, after the Grand Jury under the next DA brought charges against him.

God help anyone who votes for this lady in Massachusetts, if this story is true. Dismantle FOX if it isn't.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's the double life sentence for? The cop victimize some other kid?

Hope the cop isn't black, or we'll get the racism bitching all over again from leftist jackasses that pretend that America only gets pissed when the rapist is black [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
What's the double life sentence for? The cop victimize some other kid?

Hope the cop isn't black, or we'll get the racism bitching all over again from leftist jackasses that pretend that America only gets pissed when the rapist is black [Roll Eyes]

No, the man was white, and also the uncle. He was babysitting.

I don't know why he is serving a double-life sentence. He was eventually brought to court and convicted for this act. I'm assuming the double-life sentence probably has something to do with the heinous nature of the crime.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So I'm assuming you feel as strongly about Huckabee?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
So I'm assuming you feel as strongly about Huckabee?

Does who feel as strongly about Huckabee as about what? [Confused]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The man interviewed claims when Coakley was DA, her office dismissed a Grand Jury that was investigated a sexual assault against a twenty-eight-month-old child.
The grand jury investigating didn't return an indictment the first time around. The grand jury, the second time around, did return indictments on rape, assault, and battery... while Coakley was still DA, so
quote:
after the Grand Jury under the next DA brought charges against him.

is false. .
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Does who feel as strongly about Huckabee as about what? [Confused] "

Michelle, as about "God help anyone who votes for this lady in Massachusetts, if this story is true."

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
The man interviewed claims when Coakley was DA, her office dismissed a Grand Jury that was investigated a sexual assault against a twenty-eight-month-old child.
The grand jury investigating didn't return an indictment the first time around. The grand jury, the second time around, did return indictments on rape, assault, and battery... while Coakley was still DA, so
quote:
after the Grand Jury under the next DA brought charges against him.

is false. .

PSRT _ Coakley's office dismissed a Grand Jury while telling the family the Grand Jury wouldn't pursue charges. After the mother and her lawyer filed a criminal complaint on their own, then Coakley's office had a second Grand Jury looked into the case. They filed charges, but eight months had gone by and it was under a new DA the man was eventually convicted. Coakley held up prosecution until she could no longer.

I've looked into original articles surrounding the case. So far the timeline is accurate, and the reported actions of Coakley's office are reported true. the only thing not clearly spelled out is the motive. Coakley defended herself with. "Well we handle like nine thousand cases." So far, the story seems to be legit, and in fact, the Boston Globe ran a story on it recently.

I like to see how many of those nine-thousand cases compare to the utter brutality and insanity of this one.

I believe she did tamper with justice on the behalf of her donor's fat wallet. She sickens me.


Huckabee? I never liked the guy. He is too Lawrence Welk-like for me, but if you are referring to that case where he let a child molester go: I would want to know if he did it for money and power like Coakley or just because he was stupid.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Appears to be a very weak Democratic candidate.

Ah good, you got the memo! This is exactly the spin you're supposed to throw out. It's a "weak candidate", not a statement on the policies or the out of control spending the democrats are pushing. Nooooo, can't be that! No way.

Massachusetts has voted for anyone with a D after their name or Kennedy for a generation. Obama won MA by 26 points only a little over a year ago. And we're supposed to believe this massive turnaround is all on a "weak candidate" performance? Yeah, sure it is.

0rnery mentioned hiding your head in the sand and that's exactly what democrats are doing if the believe this line of a "weak candidate". In fact, you you believe the "weak candidate' spin, you've got your head shoved somewhere other than the sand ...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
PSRT _ Coakley's office dismissed a Grand Jury while telling the family the Grand Jury wouldn't pursue charges. After the mother and her lawyer filed a criminal complaint on their own, then Coakley's office had a second Grand Jury looked into the case. They filed charges, but eight months had gone by and it was under a new DA the man was eventually convicted. Coakley held up prosecution until she could no longer.
a) The conviction was acheived under a new DA, but the case was started under Coakley.

b) The amount of evidence that the DA's office had by the time of the second grand jury was significantly more than at the first grand jury. She advised the first grand jury to take no action, its true, but that is not the same as dismissing the grand jury or holding up prosecution.

c) The lawyer for the family used that family to launch a campaign against Coakley, so him filing charges (about a week-10 days before Coakley got the grand jury indictment) could VERY EASILY have been him trying to have his cake and eat it too in his campaign. If Coakley does nothing, she looks like an idiot, if she gets an indictment it looks like he pushed her to it (Which is the stance you are taking).

I don't know if getting an indictment with the evidence they had at the time of the first grand jury sitting would have been enough to go to start a process of moving towards trial. Neither do you. Assuming that she was trying to not indict this guy is assuming she has evil motives, that you have no evidence to support. The guy was eventually convicted and sentenced to two life sentences, a process that started while Coakley was DA... so, seems to me its pretty easy to say she could have handled the case better, and not so easy to say much more than that. Essentially, I'm about 99% certain that you'd rather demonize her than look dispasionately at the evidence.

I'm not a Coakley supporter, by the way. I am not phone banking for her, despite the requests of all my Left leaning friends in MA. I may not even vote for her (though I am CERTAINLY not voting for Scott Brown). I think you've done exactly what Fox News wants you to do, though, which is get far more enraged than the evidence warrants.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Appears to be a very weak Democratic candidate.

Ah good, you got the memo! This is exactly the spin you're supposed to throw out. It's a "weak candidate", not a statement on the policies or the out of control spending the democrats are pushing. Nooooo, can't be that! No way.

Massachusetts has voted for anyone with a D after their name or Kennedy for a generation. Obama won MA by 26 points only a little over a year ago. And we're supposed to believe this massive turnaround is all on a "weak candidate" performance? Yeah, sure it is.

0rnery mentioned hiding your head in the sand and that's exactly what democrats are doing if the believe this line of a "weak candidate". In fact, you you believe the "weak candidate' spin, you've got your head shoved somewhere other than the sand ...

G2, your post is rude and unnecessary. You should apologize to Greg.
Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
c) The lawyer for the family used that family to launch a campaign against Coakley, so him filing charges (about a week-10 days before Coakley got the grand jury indictment) could VERY EASILY have been him trying to have his cake and eat it too in his campaign. If Coakley does nothing, she looks like an idiot, if she gets an indictment it looks like he pushed her to it (Which is the stance you are taking).

I don't think so. The lawyer wrote to Coakley's office telling her his plans to file a criminal complaint. She informed him to wait she would investigate, then she launched a second Grand Jury. It appears she was pushed. There wasn't any new evidence, the second time. They had it all the first time.


Trust me, I know FOX is pushing my buttons, but in this case, I hope they push everyone's.

We got enough greedy politicians on he Hill to sell us out, we don't need to add a soulless creature to the heap.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure how you can be so sure about the exact details of a case you didn't know existed until fairly recently.

I also repeat the question: Do you feel so strongly about Huckabee and his cop killer?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oops, you answered. Sowwy.

"I would want to know if he did it for money and power like Coakley or just because he was stupid."

I do repeat though that you seem awfully certain not just of the outlines of this case, but the exact minutiae and even motivations. According to you, you learned about this case on January 15. Even if you had done nothing since but dig up all possible coverage of the case, your implied command of the material would be impressive, to say the least.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I live in MA, and I personally do not like Coakley at all as a candidate. So yeah, a very weak candidate. In fact, I think "weak" does not even begin to describe it.

I very nearly voted for the Libertarian guy instead of Coakely because I dislike her that much. Her campaign was TERRIBLE and she sounds like the band camp girl from american pie. I just would hate myself too much if Brown got in because of that though... so I had to pick Coakley.

quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Appears to be a very weak Democratic candidate.

Ah good, you got the memo! This is exactly the spin you're supposed to throw out. It's a "weak candidate", not a statement on the policies or the out of control spending the democrats are pushing. Nooooo, can't be that! No way.

Massachusetts has voted for anyone with a D after their name or Kennedy for a generation. Obama won MA by 26 points only a little over a year ago. And we're supposed to believe this massive turnaround is all on a "weak candidate" performance? Yeah, sure it is.

0rnery mentioned hiding your head in the sand and that's exactly what democrats are doing if the believe this line of a "weak candidate". In fact, you you believe the "weak candidate' spin, you've got your head shoved somewhere other than the sand ...


Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Appears to be a very weak Democratic candidate.

Ah good, you got the memo! This is exactly the spin you're supposed to throw out. It's a "weak candidate", not a statement on the policies or the out of control spending the democrats are pushing. Nooooo, can't be that! No way.

Massachusetts has voted for anyone with a D after their name or Kennedy for a generation. Obama won MA by 26 points only a little over a year ago. And we're supposed to believe this massive turnaround is all on a "weak candidate" performance? Yeah, sure it is.

0rnery mentioned hiding your head in the sand and that's exactly what democrats are doing if the believe this line of a "weak candidate". In fact, you you believe the "weak candidate' spin, you've got your head shoved somewhere other than the sand ...

G2, your post is rude and unnecessary. You should apologize to Greg.
I forgot about this ...

Rude? Perhaps but a great deal of it was not directed at Greg personally, particularly the last paragraph. G2 wrote hastily and clearly was not communicating his intent with his usual precision. For that, G2 issues his profound apologies to any and all that took offense.

Unnecessary? G2 disagrees. This is the talking point being promulgated (look at that, G2 got a roll of word of the day toilet paper) to deflect the reality of what this means. Coakley ran a train wreck of a campaign but this is one of the bluest of the blue states. Coakley was ahead by something like 30 points only a few weeks ago. Obama, The One himself, has campaigned for her. Did anybody really think just a week or so ago that there was any chance for Brown?

Brown has been running, in part, on the promise to be the "41st vote" to uphold a filibuster against the Democrats' health care legislation. Chalking this up to little more than a weak campaign is simply shoving your head in ... the sand. [Wink]

[ January 19, 2010, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See, the problem is, Coakley didn't really campaign at all, and then suddenly started putting out crazy commercials about scott brown that were WAY over the top when I don't even think most voters even knew who coakley was and they were pretty put off by it. I think that pretty much backfired and only created more publicity for brown.

Not to mention, she managed to break two simple rules of massachusetts politics: don't insult the red sox and don't insult catholics.

Epic fail.

[ January 19, 2010, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unnecessary? G2 disagrees. This is the talking point being promulgated (look at that, G2 got a roll of word of the day toilet paper) to deflect the reality of what this means. Coakley ran a train wreck of a campaign but this is one of the bluest of the blue states. Coakley was ahead by something like 30 points only a few weeks ago. Obama, The One himself, has campaigned for her. Did anybody really think just a week or so ago that there was any chance for Brown?

Brown has been running, in part, on the promise to be the "41st vote" to uphold a filibuster against the Democrats' health care legislation. Chalking this up to little more than a weak campaign is simply shoving your head in ... the sand.

If Coakley has dropped 30-40 points in the last few weeks, and Obama's approval rating hasn't dropped anywhere remotely near that in the last few weeks, how can you attribute Coakley's drop to Obama's unpopularity? Wouldn't Coakley and Obama's numbers at least be correlated? Clearly there are other factors at work here.

edit: grammar

[ January 19, 2010, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: TCB ]

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Linux, wouldn't you agree that the term "weak" could be fleshed out a little bit? I sense from your post that you view her as distant or disconnected form her people.

Is this true?

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't expect this to be certified anytime soon, one way or another.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sfallmann
Member
Member # 2148

 - posted      Profile for sfallmann   Email sfallmann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Coakley conceded.

Looks like Brown by 7.

Posts: 396 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, sfallman. Hasn't hit the local news yet.
Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Administration has been trying to blame Coakley for several days now, saying she ran a poor campaign, and took too much for granted. The chief pollster for the Coakley campaign said the loss was the White House's fault.

As Sean Hannity put it, Democrats are going into their usual way of dealing with a loss--a circular firing squad.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That amusing summary quoted by Ron Lambert may represent the truth: everyone will be blaming everyone else. And no doubt some voters did choose Brown over Coakley to send a message to the White House.

But I doubt the White House hand picked Martha Coakley to run for this vacant seat, and her loss may have little to do with national politics. Massachusetts includes an enormous proportion of independent voters who care little about the fate of the national parties in addition to Republicans and Democrats, and Brown seems to have been the more appealing candidate. No doubt Coakley's loss will precede discouraging results for Democrats in November, but so will the fact that at least one full moon will occur in April. Whichever party takes over the White House in something of a landslide almost always has trouble two years later, without the leadership of a winning candidate, so it would be amazing if Obama and the Democrats broke that pattern. And even if Coakley had won, I doubt that would have encouraged those expert in politics to believe Democratic prospects are superior this year.

[ January 19, 2010, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Debbie Wasserman Schultz - FL (D) - a member of the national Democratic Steering and Policy committee was on MSNBC excoriating the Coakley campaign. It seemed pretty poor timing to be clobbering the campaign immediately after the concession speech, but I guess the political calculus is to CYA as fast as possible.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That sort of thing strikes me as TV generated news. The House includes hundreds of Democratic members with a variety of opinions. And being a member of the Democratic Steering and Policy committee does give a certain credibility, but it is hardly like being Secretary of State like Hillary Clinton. Since House members benefit from appearing on national TV networks, which gives them the appearance of being important on the national scene, networks can usually find one to say whatever they want. Perhaps not to endorse infanticide, or anything else politically suicidal, but certainly someone who will endorse any commonly expressed viewpoint even if somewhat controversial. And numerous observers have commented that Coakley could have run a better campaign. So if MSNBC wants to say that, in the interest of generating controversy, I am not surprised they can find a House member who agrees.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A Massachusates Republican is a liberal Democrat where I'm from.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
A Massachusates Republican is a liberal Democrat where I'm from.

Generally, yes. But given Republican party discipline, he's not going to act like it. Heck, he even supports the Massachusetts healthcare plan, which is a more liberal version of what the current bill Congress is considering, but ran on the platform of voting against the federal plan.

I'll be very pleasantly surprised if he does anything but toe the party line here, but I highly doubt he's going to be anything but rank and file so long as the Republicans are focused on ideological purity rather than supporting their incumbents.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
That sort of thing strikes me as TV generated news.

The media generated controversy here is that this is any way a referendum on healthcare and not a vote against a incompetent and rather reprehensible candidate. A large number of people who support the current administration voted against her, and she insulted her voters so consistently that it's surprising that the vote was as close as it was.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sfallmann
Member
Member # 2148

 - posted      Profile for sfallmann   Email sfallmann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Coakley was bad, but healthcare and deficit reduction were important factors as well.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/first_look_at_massachusetts_election_night_poll_data

Posts: 396 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I highly doubt he's going to be anything but rank and file so long as the Republicans are focused on ideological purity rather than supporting their incumbents."

I find that highly ironic given the current situation. Dorgan's already gone. Reid, Lincoln, Bennet, and Specter will soon follow. I'm surprised there's been no polling in Indiana, but given Bayh's furious spinning yesterday, I suspect even he's in trouble. And Nelson, Landrieu, Webb, and several others are thanking their lucky stars that they're not up for election in 2010.

Just in case you didn't notice, Pyrtolin, this health care bill is very, very unpopular. That's the reason the Republican's are standing together on this; they know that opposition is exactly what the people want. Scott Brown knew that opposing the health care bill would net him volunteers and votes.

Yes, Coakley was a terrible candidate. But that's not enough to make her lose. The permanent Republican majority lasted a whopping 4 years; don't be surprised if the permanent Democratic majority lasts the same.

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bayh is one of the best things to ever happen to Indiana; I have to admit it'd be a real shame if they foolishly dumped him.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
A Massachusates Republican is a liberal Democrat where I'm from.

Generally, yes. But given Republican party discipline, he's not going to act like it. Heck, he even supports the Massachusetts healthcare plan, which is a more liberal version of what the current bill Congress is considering, but ran on the platform of voting against the federal plan.

I'll be very pleasantly surprised if he does anything but toe the party line here, but I highly doubt he's going to be anything but rank and file so long as the Republicans are focused on ideological purity rather than supporting their incumbents.

If my state does what I think they're going to do and send Rand Paul to the senate it's going to be harder to define what idealogical purity is for a Republican. That's the race to watch.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1