How the Democrats Lost Massachusetts


539w

On the one-year anniversary of his presidency, Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress have received a stinging verdict on their collaborative reign. By electing Republican Scott Brown over Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley to succeed in the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, the voters of a state that Obama carried by 26 points in 2008 have sent a clear message that the legislative excesses of the majority party are too much for even the residents of the reliably liberal Bay State to bear.

Brown’s stunning five-point upset victory has already inspired its share of intraparty recrimination, much of it justified. It seems clear, for instance, that Coakley ran an inept and ultimately uninspired campaign, one that took victory for granted and paid the price for its complacency. One could also argue, as some Democratic insiders have, that the party’s campaign committee failed to foresee the dangers of Brown’s insurgent populist candidacy, intervening to save Coakley’s faltering campaign only after it was too late. Whatever the merit of these post-mortems, they also miss the broader lessons of Brown’s seismic triumph.

Domestic criminal trials for terrorists are a losing issue for Democrats. Brown scored some of his greatest successes when he assailed Coakley for her stand on national security. Some of Coakley’s wounds were self-inflicted, as when she insisted, against all evidence to the contrary, that there were no terrorists active in Afghanistan. But Brown was also able to tap into the mainstream view, which runs counter to the Obama administration’s policy, that terrorist detainees should not be entitled to criminal protections. In the aftermath of the Christmas terror plot, when aspiring underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab kept mum after being granted an attorney, there is little public appetite for terrorists with possible knowledge of new plots to be afforded the right to remain silent. Extending these civil liberties to terrorists is not only a national security threat. Brown’s victory suggests that it also a political danger to Democrats.  

Even Democratic-leaning states oppose the Democrats’ health care overhaul. In its final poll before the election, the well-regarded Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling found that the Massachusetts’ electorate was deeply skeptical of the Democrats’ health care plan, with 48 percent of voters opposing the plan. Considering that the state’s 2006 health care law was seen as an early model for the national reform, Brown’s win is the latest indictment of the Democrats’ vision of an expanded government role in health care. Because Coakley was a supporter of health care reform, Brown was able to capitalize on popular skepticism by running as the self-styled “41st vote” who could stop the health care bill. He will now have the chance to make good on that promise.

Independents are disenchanted with the Democratic leadership. While Massachusetts is often seen as a liberal bastion, more than half the electorate is made up of independents. Their support proved critical to Brown’s victory. Even as liberal Boston voted the party line, independent voters from the state’s suburbs turned the tide in Brown’s favor. That follows a pattern in other battleground states, including Virginia and New Jersey, where an independent-led insurgency helped down Democratic incumbents. Against this backlash from independents, President Obama’s influence was ineffectual. Despite a last-minute stumping effort on Coakley’s behalf, Obama did little to help her cause. With his approval rating slipping below 50 percent, yesterday’s redeemer of Democratic Party fortunes has become today’s bystander in defeat.

The anti-Democratic revolt has crossed party lines. Although Democratic spinmeisters and partisans worked overtime to cast Brown as the tool of hateful right-wing interests and tea-party reactionaries – MSNBC loudmouth Keith Olbermann scraped bottom with an unhinged and invective-laden rant assailing Brown as an “irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude-model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees” – the discomfiting truth for the party is that Brown’s appeal blurred party lines. Some polls had Brown drawing support from nearly 20 percent of registered Democrats. That Democrats can no longer count on the loyalties of party faithful even in staunchly “blue” states is a poignant commentary on both the failures of Congressional Democratic leadership and a reflection of the growing populist backlash against Democrats’ misrule.

If Brown’s victory represents a severe judgment on the failings of the Democrats’ leadership, it’s not clear that they have gotten the message. One might think that Democrats would be chastened by the Massachusetts results. But the only lesson that Democrats seem to have learned from the race is that they need to be even more arrogant in pursuing an unpopular legislative agenda. When, in the final days of the race, it looked like Brown could indeed win, Democrats floated the idea of ramming the health bill through backchannels – whether by bypassing the Senate altogether and sending the House-approved version straight to President Obama or else by resorting to the “nuclear” option that would allow them to pass the bill with a 51-vote majority. Both options are widely considered political suicide, but such is the Democrats’ commitment to the legislation that even the prospect of certain defeat may be a weak deterrent.

Democrats’ missteps are of course only part of the story of the Massachusetts race. The other is Scott Brown. Savvy, charismatic and clued into voters’ concerns, Brown’s campaign was everything that Coakley’s was not. Both the Coakley campaign and President Obama poked fun at Brown’s regular-guy image – particularly the well-worn GMC truck with which he traversed the state. But it’s Brown who will have the last laugh. In one of his final campaign stops, Brown promised to pack up his “truck and drive it straight to Washington.” Thanks to the Democrats’ blunders and to his political skills, he’s on his way.

  • trumpeldor

    Âmerica is back on his tracks. !
    All my expectations were fulfilled this night with the election of the republican candidate
    God bless USA and Israel, both free nations with equal rights for ALL ,

    Trumpeldor from eurabia

    • bardefa

      The annoi(nted)ning one was making fun of Brown's GM truck…He owns GM and makes fun of its product??? Great business acumen, Barak Insain O'Bummer.

      Brown/Palin in 2012

  • http://pretpersonnelenligne.org Mr vactanan

    That Democrats can no longer count on the loyalties of party faithful even in staunchly “blue” states is a poignant commentary on both the failures of Congressional Democratic leadership and a reflection of the growing populist backlash against Democrats’ misrule.

    Simulation
    Simulation credit
    Pret Personnel Enligne

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

    "In the aftermath of the Christmas terror plot, when aspiring underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab kept mum after being granted an attorney,"

    But he was interrogated by the FBI. The dishonest implication is that he has a wealth of information but has said nothing…they took him off the plane and he hasn't said a word since. He wasn't waterboarded though. Maybe Laksin should just say what he means…We should have arrested him without charges, taken him to a CIA installation in a torture friendly country and tortured him.

    "Some of Coakley’s wounds were self-inflicted, as when she insisted, against all evidence to the contrary, that there were no terrorists active in Afghanistan."

    She just didn't say this. Last article they actually quoted her (in FPM's favorite 3-4 word chunks) now, they just tell you what the point of the original smear was. If you want to argue that she did say this…then look back on the last article about this subject and I posted the full quote…or you can go find it yourself. FPM writers need to remember that what they feel about someone…you know what "sounds about right" for such a person (an evil leftist) shouldn't replace what the person actually thinks and feels. So if this was a wound, it wasn't self-inflicted. Like many the Republican/TeaParty talking points, it's 20% truth, 60% lie, and 20% icing of psuedo-religious anti-concepts. I'm not a resident of Mass, so I didn't follow this election very closely, but it was impossible not to notice Fox News in the week leading up to the vote. Simply unprecedented and amazing political advocacy by a "news" network. That's never mentioned by anyone. The other fact no one mentions is that Coakley is a woman. I had no idea how much more stronger misogyny was than racism in this country until I watched what the media did to Hillary Clinton during the last election and the comments (in all media) by Americans about her and what women are capable of.

    "Extending these civil liberties to terrorists is not only a national security threat. Brown’s victory suggests that it also a political danger to Democrats. "
    If any of you flew into a foreign country and was accused of being a terrorist, you would expect at least a trial where your accusers face you and you hear the charges against you, see the evidence, etc. Oops…sorry…you were accused of being a TERRORIST…so naturally you have been dispatched to Uzbekistan where you will learn how to invent intricate stories about your terrorist past with a car battery attached to your ball sack. Laskin would certainly expect a trial or some hint of fairness (because I am assuming he would be innocent)…and he would decry the treatment of an American in the above way, but like many self-righteous, entitled, partisans, this is the kind of thing that he deserves but it's not a principle for us to follow. If we feel threatened then screw this "rights" stuff and this PC "due process".

    "Considering that the state’s 2006 health care law was seen as an early model for the national reform, Brown’s win is the latest indictment of the Democrats’ vision of an expanded government role in health care."

    If the Senate was tossing around a decent single-payer plan or public option with serious price controls, then people might feel different….but since the Democrats like the green just as much as Republicans, they will be relieved if Scott Brown helps "defeat" the abomination of a bill that comes out of the Senate.

    But what is always avoided on FPM is that a majority of people in the US would like to have a National Health Care "Plan" (either a public option or single-payer system like Britain) but when you tell people that it's a communist plot to kill their grandparents and that they will pay more in taxes for rationed service while they rot in line waiting….yeah, people tend to be against that.

    Scott Brown is a Republican, but he got in by never mentioning them and playing a populist who drives a pickup. How he found the bravery to rail against "irresponsible spending" and not bending over for terrorists…I'll never know. Coakley also filed the lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996

    When Obama gave a speech in support of Coakley, a "heckler" screamed out something about "innocent blood" and they even had a kid screaming…just trying to disrupt. This is of course reported with pride by GOP supporters and surrogates that think this type of thing is awesome as long as it's aimed away from them. Scott Brown had a "heckler" of his own, but he was a supporter who loudly suggested that they shove a curling iron up Coakley's ass.

    The Republicans were simply more energized than the Democrats….and by energized, I mean ginned up on patriotic nonsense and angry as hell at the Marxist that are ripping this country to shreds. If you tell one group that they should get out the vote so the spineless Democrats maintain 60 votes and you tell the other group that everyone will turn gay and the world will blow up if they don't vote for a Republican…then you get more "excitement".

    • davarino

      "Simply unprecedented and amazing political advocacy by a "news" network."

      I know, right, I hate it when the networks do that…..snicker.

      " I had no idea how much more stronger misogyny was than racism in this country until I watched what the media did to Hillary Clinton during the last election and the comments (in all media) by Americans about her and what women are capable of. "

      Ya, preach it brother, and what they did to Sarah Palin too, those bastards…….snicker

      Glub glub glub, dont you hate that sinking feeling.

      That was a long rant bubba, but what ever you said November should be fun. I know its sad how there wont be a socialist take over anymore, at least this year.

      keep the faith dude……snicker

    • Tom

      I suppse Coakley's persecution of innocent men and women falsly accused of child molestation had nothing to do with it either.
      Hecklers screaming out at Obamas speech? What about all the disruptions and union beatings at Republican and conservative rallies? Don't they count for something? Especially considering how much more vehement AND violent they were?
      The curling iron remark relates to Coakley's release without bail or bond, a police officer accused of doing that very action.
      As for being "ginned up on patriotic nonsense" I don't consider patriotism "nonsense"
      Sorry, bubba4, you are wrong on so many counts.

      • scott

        Hey Tom for something to hold some credibilty there has to be at least a shred of truth to it. "Disruptions and union beatings at a Republican and conservative rallies?" Please name just one that this happened at that wasn't contrived by liberal or union operatives working with covertly with the Democrat party.
        Sorry Tom you are wrong.

        • Tom

          Scott,

          My point is that the disruptions WERE contrived by the unions working with the Democratic party. And, of course, bubba4 and his kin don’t mention that at all.

          I should have been clearer that the disruptions, beatings etc. were not done by Republicans and conservatives but were done to them.

          Tom

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

            Um….I don't know what you're talking about….which is why I didn't mention it. Sure, on FPM union members are corrupt "thugs" with Marxist tendencies and it sure "sounds like" something those soul-less monsters would do when they aren't trying to rob YOU…but would you mind terribly linking some resource material on this?

            I don't think patriotism is nonsense…but the patriotic nonsense I was talking about is nonsense….and thus aptly named. "patriotic" is the adjective to "nonsense"…something to further describe the particular flavor of bull I was describing.

    • USMCSniper

      My we are pissed today aren't we? HA HA HA HA HA

      • davarino

        Ya November should be fun hehehe.

        Sorry Bubba, we are laughing at your expense heheheh

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

          My original was a pretty measured and reasonable post….so, Sniper would have to tell you why he thinks I'm "pissed".

    • bardefa

      And your comments about Croakley imprisoning innocent people for 10 and 20 years? Can you think? Use both grey cells. Tell us about this unpunished crime.

      Whatever is the % among Republicans, it always beats 90% lies of Dems.

      Brown/Palin in 2012.

      • davarino

        Uh oh, Bubba says we are masoginistic so we better make it Palin/Brown in 2012 hehehe. Does that meet with your approval Bubba?

    • http://www.tarandfeathers.shugartmedia.com tar and feathers

      I dig your take bub. It's the same old litany of misconceptions that cause Dems to lose elections. Rock on, and remain clueless through 2010 and until 2012.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

        I thought I read the article, looked around at a lot of different information and then wrote a post that was my own opinion about events that just happened.

        Thanks for the patience and care it took to write this stunning two line reply.

        Sorry that I care about our rights.

    • peperoni

      Funny, they misquoted the wanna-be Kennedy, but if the quote was so easily obtainable why didn't you provide it? Or maybe you did, I skimmed through it beause you bore me. Sound like my old college professors who think socialists lose elections because they aren't socialist enough.

      Funny, you actually suggest that voters went against the democrats over the health issue because it didn't have marxist price controls and a single payer plan…hmmm…so they went to the republicans because the democrats aren't marxist enough?

      You really believe that don't you? THat's cute! :)

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

        Then why should I bother if you some trolling dick? You're perfectly capable of finding her complete statements with a few mouse clicks. If you want to debate or argue with someone, you might want to start out by reading their post.

        If I bore you, simply move on. It's not like you're contributing anything.

      • davarino

        Woe, watch out peperoni. Bubba gets fiesty when you corner him and then starts calling you names.

        I think the mental jujitsu is starting to get to him. He has probably forgotten what he actually believes.

        Watch he is going to call me a name now hehehe. Dont call me dick, I wanna be richard

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

          Wow…I thought him not reading my post and yet telling me what I said/meant made him a dick.

          Not sure what encouraging this behavior and thinking it's "mental Jujistu" makes you.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Poppakap Poppakap

      Bubba, besides being flat out wrong, you're boring. Just because you churn up old DailyKooks dribble, doesn't mean you have a point worth sharing.

      You said, "But he was interrogated by the FBI. The dishonest implication is that he has a wealth of information but has said nothing." The only dishonesty here is yours. This article is not implying any such thing since anyone that observes news sources outside of HuffandPuffPost and BSNBC knows that skivvy-bomber WAS giving important information about jihadi activities until he was Mirandized. That's why this has become an issue.

      You also blathered, "…He wasn't waterboarded though. Maybe Laksin (note: misspelling is yours, not mine) should just say what he means…We should have arrested him without charges, taken him to a CIA installation in a torture friendly country and tortured him." Talk about dishonest implications. Furthermore, you obviously know next to nothing about the law, domestic or otherwise. Neither Geneva Convention nor US legal protections by statute are applied to those who are not US citizens and those not respecting the rules of war (read: terrorists). That is why military tribunals were established over 100 years ago for people outside the protections of civil law and international agreement. That is also why the skivvy bomber SHOULD NOT have been mirandized nor given trial in a civilian court. If pinkos don' t like it, you can go complain to FDR; he added to the precedent of military tribunals in these situations.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

        "Bubba, besides being flat out wrong, you're boring. Just because you churn up old DailyKooks dribble, doesn't mean you have a point worth sharing."

        But I'm sure you do and I can't wait to hear it. I love all the variations of the "you are brainwashed" meme and the courageous people that deploy it. I read and watch a lot of sources of information. I tell you what cupcake, instead of just really insisting something is true…why don't you post a link to something? I would just be tickled pink to be as informed as you.

        "Can you say hypocrite? Talk about dishonest implications… Furthermore, you obviously know next to nothing about the law, domestic or otherwise."

        While, I'm sure Laskin would replace the word "torture" with something less harsh, there is nothing dishonest in what I said.

        "Neither Geneva Convention nor US legal protections by statute are applied to those who are not US citizens and those not respecting the rules of war (read: terrorists)."

        Let's approach this from another direction…like I did in my first post. If you flew into a foreign country and were accused of being a terrorist…what would you expect to have happen? Wouldn't you want to see your family and an attorney? Would you suddenly find that you like the idea of "human rights" as a universal principle?

        "If pinkos don' t like it, you can go complain to FDR; he added to the precedent of military tribunals in these situations."

        No post is complete without calling someone a Communist I guess. Classy. Military tribunals were for charging members of the enemy force during wartime. "War" typically occurs between Nations. So it's not really a "precedent" for what you want it to be. Basically what you got there is an opinion, just presented with a lot of self-assured condescension.

        • Walt

          Bubba – ref your para #6 above …

          In one of your (numerous) previous posts you tried to compare the 'panty bomber', who was caught red handed while trying to kill several hundred people with an average traveler who is accused of being a terrorist.

          This 'strawman' concept cannot even be discussed intelligently because there are no common variables – except that they were both travelers.

          Get a grip Bubba – your ignorance is on display, and it is not a pretty picture!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

            I simply asked the question that you don't answer….which is: what protections would you expect from another country if you found yourself being accused of a terrible crime (or act of terrorism) like this?

            "This 'strawman' concept cannot even be discussed intelligently because there are no common variables – except that they were both travelers."

            It would only be a strawman argument if I was suggesting that you or the other poster were saying we should zealously prosecute innocent people. But I wasn't making a comparison or saying that there was any chance the Underwear Bomber was innocent or anything remotely like that. So figure out what "strawman" argument means before you call people ignorant.

        • coyote3

          What I would want, and what I would get are not the same thing. I don't carry my constitutional protections with me from country to country. Apparently, you haven't been in some of the foreign countries I have been in. If I was lucky, I would get a quick "dobe wall."

          As far as citing that the protections offered to soldiers are not offered to civilians who take up arms, you have produced no citation that they are entitled to those protections. Indeed, the commentators to those rules have stated explicitly the good reasons why they do not apply. If they did soldiers would not know who was a combatant, and who was not a combatant. If troops can't rely on the fact that that civilians are out of the fight then they will fire on civilians out of self preservation. As for the military tribunals, you haven't proved your point that they are "for" charging a enemy force, and that "war" is restricted to conflicts between nations.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

            Apparently, you haven't been in some of the foreign countries I have been in. If I was lucky, I would get a quick "dobe wall."

            Well, you've given FPM posters something try strive for. The rest of your argument here is about soldiers in combat. We were talking about the Underwear Bomber.

            "As for the military tribunals, you haven't proved your point that they are "for" charging a enemy force, and that "war" is restricted to conflicts between nations."

            The previous poster said that FDR set the precedent of military tribunals for people committing terror here in the United States, but the tribunals FDR put in motion were for trying German saboteurs in this country…GERMAN saboteurs…working for GERMANY…the country we were AT WAR with. We use the word "war" for lots of things. I don't have all day to write detailed essays on everything. Maybe instead of saying "nations" I should have said "entities in command of large uniformed armies"? but I thought you would understand what I was getting at.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

      The Senate HAS tossed around single payer and government option scams, but by their nature they are indecent to a relatively free people who value what freedom they have left. Like so much of socialism, the more people find out about it, the less they like it. The devil's always in the details. That's why the dp tried to ram it through before it could be read, the night before Christmas Eve, and then tried to buy their supporters and the health care industry off with backroom brokered preferential treatment and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars they don't have.

      The dp mistakes people's support health care reform, for support of a government health care takeover. Some people clearly believed the dp when they said they were going to be transparent and clean up the 'culture of corruption' and they aren't seeing that. They're just seeing what small time pikers the GOP were at it. Few are happy with the GOP, or see where they have learned any lessons, but most are finding out how much worse the big alternative is.

      It wasn't energized Republicans that put Brown in that seat, it was PO'd democrats and independents. If you really care to know why Brown won, watch this video of a group of dp voters. Note even the dark haired hard leftist lady (upper right) is PO'd at the dp and had a good well thought out point :

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjpTFpH9FFM&fe

      Gee, why would someone suggest such a thing with a curling iron? Could it be because coakley let someone go who maimed a toddler that way, while keeping an innocent man (Who somehow raped children with a 12inch knife without leaving any marks, in plain sight of a busy road) locked up? Hussein didn't do her any favors when he reminded people of that in his pathetic pitch for her.

    • Tim

      “But he was interrogated by the FBI. ” – Really? Was it a complete interrogation? Do we feel comfortable enough to *not* interrogate him?

      “The dishonest implication is that he has a wealth of information but has said nothing…” – Who said that this is a dishonest implication? How do you *know* that he has nothing to know or say? To me, if I understand your point correctly, that sounds a little arrogant on your part to assume such. You know what they say about people who assume…

      “We should have arrested him without charges, taken him to a CIA installation in a torture friendly country and tortured him.” – I think that this has already been mentioned, but I think it’s worthwhile to restate: (1)This is *not* a common criminal. This act does not fall under any of the definitions of common criminal to which would be handled in a regular court of law. This Al-Queda terrorist from Nigeria was caught red-handed trying to blow up a bomb while an aircraft was in flight – meaning the purpose of this act was to generate as much damage in both physical and human terms as possible for the sole purpose to terrorize a nation’s people. Thank God for the passengers and the untold number of innocent civilians on the ground that it failed. (2) He is *not* a US citizen, so therefore, the rights afforded to legal citizens granted to US citizens in the Constitution has no relevance to him, and thus, he should *not* be allowed those same rights and protections, IMO. (3) He is *not* a uniformed soldier under orders from a foreign country, and does not enjoy the regular protections from the Geneva Convention for regular uniformed soldiers during a time of war. In fact, the GC clearly states what would be defined as insurgent activity, and what a country’s legal recourse should be when dealing with irregular, non-uniformed terrorists who try to perpetrate such wanton acts of violence. (4) We have rules already established on how to prosecute people who fall under this sort of legal category, which this fellow clearly does. It’s referred to as military tribunals. The fact that this administration is pushing for this terrorist to be tried in a civilian court setting, and being afforded the same rights and privileges under the US Constitution as regular citizens really shows me that they wish to reduce what is clearly another terrorist activity by Al Queda to nothing more than an act perpetrated by a common criminal, and THAT puts us all in very grave danger.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/bubba4 bubba4

        "But he was interrogated by the FBI. " – Really? Was it a complete interrogation? Do we feel comfortable enough to *not* interrogate him?

        I don't know. I wasn't there. The FBI says they interrogated him. I made no other implications.

        "How do you *know* that he has nothing to know or say? To me, if I understand your point correctly, that sounds a little arrogant on your part to assume such."

        I don't…what? What are you saying? It's a dishonest implication, because the guy writing the article left out the bit about being interrogated. He leaves it up in the air, but posters have followed through with more detail saying that reading him his rights cut off the interrogation as he started to spill the beans…now that's assuming.

        You don't have to waste time typing a bunch of stuff that I already know.

        "(1)This is *not* a common criminal."

        You're right…he's an uncommon criminal

        "(2) He is *not* a US citizen"

        No shit…

        "(3) He is *not* a uniformed soldier under orders from a foreign country"

        Sigh…yes I know.

        "We have rules already established on how to prosecute people who fall under this sort of legal category, which this fellow clearly does. It's referred to as military tribunals."

        Are you guys reading the same editorals? Military tribunals were first set up for German saboteurs during WWII. What Bush did was unprecedented. What rules exactly are you talking about? Can you post a link or something. I guess it's your right if you want to feel endangered by giving the Underwear Bomber a trial, but I don't think it's necessary to be scared.

        "shows me that they wish to reduce what is clearly another terrorist activity by Al Queda to nothing more than an act perpetrated by a common criminal,"

        This is what you call a "talking point". It's about Obama "reducing" the crime….about "giving" some dirty terrorist "OUR rights and privledges".

        That's just designed to piss you off. The way things are setup in this country separating domestic/foreign law enforcement, a local militia, and with rights for people even if they are accused of something terrible…we are protected from anyone having the power to take away YOUR rights simply by classifying the crime you're accused of as "terrorism". It's not about protecting a terrorist…it's about protecting our values.

  • kafir4life

    I think that Brown stood a chance in Ma in part because he doesn't sound like a Caucasian unless he wants to.

    Thank you MASS!!! The war certainly isn't over, but nice warming shot!!!

    • bardefa

      and he's driving 'Bamas GM truck – and the dolt makes fun of that truck!!!??!!!!

  • cedarhill

    One must never foget, even as one basks in the rays of one victory, that it's just one of a long series of battles that must be won before one can say "America is back". We should take advantage the Democrat's mistakes but we must also pitch the vission and action issues. Energy is and should be "the" issue for 2010 and 2012. Energy is needed for a robust economy, for propserity and for any standard of life. The Dems have all but killed energy production in the US along with their misdirecting capital away from areas like energy growth. They should be hammered in the next two election cycles.

    • scott

      Thank you for bringing the energy issue back in the light. As important as this issue is it is one of three that I believe will be factors in 2010 and 2012.
      The others obviously are terroism and the Obama healthcare debacle.
      Thank you.

  • giuseppe de santis

    Another article about this election

    http://www.londonpatriot.org/2010/01/20/reality-h

    From the UK

  • Abraham Stubenhaus

    To EVERY American!
    Yesterday's victory is the beginning of the New American Revolution!!!!

  • Guest

    Keith Olberbite, = NAZI FAGGOT.

    Nuff said.

    • BS1977

      Watch Keith Olberidiot and that maniac on Softball, Matthews crying and blubbering because no one listens to them anymore….

  • Johncarens

    I think another element involved in Brown's win is a small and barely detectable thing: The extreme radical Democrats made, and continue to make a serious blunder when they attack dissenting Americans as "teabaggers", (along with other malicious smears). This shows a vile condescension that exposes a repulsive and mean elitism. And, of course, this sort of snooty-patooty behavior is what caused the ancestors of Brown's masses to throw the stinkin' tea chests in the Boston Harbor all those years ago.There's nothing more volitile than a crusty Yankee scorned.

  • SFLBIB

    0bama has a new book coming out: "What's Wrong With Massachusetts?"

  • bardefa

    Way to go, Brownie!!! Bravo!
    Stop socialism/communism from entering our dear USA.

    Next step – Brown/Palin ticket!!!!

    BROWN/PALIN ticket!!!

  • http://borsi.dir.bg/_wm/pbasic/?df=22237 Fundamental

    In a short period of time, Barry Hussein Obama has shown that it is just an empty suit, bare promises, it is controlled by big corporate business and bear the loss of this small business that works instead of stealing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

    America won. 'Nuff said …

  • Boston Bob

    Proud to be a Massachusetts voter for Scott Brown.
    The first time in my life that I felt my vote really counted for something.
    Who's next, John Kerry, Barney "Hotbottom" Frank, Ed Markey? The choices are intriguing.

  • bardefa

    Brown/Palin in 2012!!!!!!
    …………………………………………Brown/Palin in 2012!!!!!!
    Brown/Palin in 2012!!!!!!
    ………………………………………………………………………………Brown/Palin in 2012!!!!!!
    …………………………………………Brown/Palin in 2012!!!!!!

  • bardefa

    NEXT _ Pooylosi – OUT!!!!!!!

    The annoi(nted)ning one was making fun of Brown's GM truck…He owns GM and makes fun of its product??? Great business acumen, Barak Insain O'Bummer.

  • bardefa

    Pelosi, Reid, Boxer – call me.
    I need a janitor.
    Sorry, Kroakley – you are not qualified.
    Maybe, you may fetch me a coffee.

  • TB-Patriot

    Yeeeeeeeeeee-ahhhhhhhhhhh!

    Way to go, Brown!!!!

  • http://netzero.com Steve Chavez

    OKAY, GREAT, but who is running against Democrats in your State? Here in New Mexico, our state is run by a crook: BILL RICHARDSON, who put us in debt of up to $500,000,000 for a train which will never pay itself off, and for many other dreams that became reality ONLY SO HE COULD BRAG ABOUT THEM WHEN HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT! There is so much corruption, I’m sure the investigators are overwhelmed!

    Then we have all three Dems in Congress and two Dem Senators. We just elected a Republican mayor who took the reins from another Democrat even though this Democrat actually worked for Albuquerque and there was much progress. So far he is staying quiet on any other office.

    All three Congressmen are up of election AND NO REPUBLICAN HAS ANNOUNCED THEIR INTEREST. I BLAME THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY as they have been powerless for years! Why aren’t there numerous candidates by now? Why haven’t they searched and recruited all levels of society? The Dems that are in there are of the EXTREME LEFT and they rode on the coat tails of “change” and they won!

    WHAT IS YOUR STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOING TO TAKE BACK YOUR STATE?

  • John C. Davidson

    If Pelosi didn't have a face lift, her cheeks would sag into a permanent droop.

    Barney's still mad someone took his stash.

    Chris Dodds is moving to Ireland to join the revolution. (Don't tell him it's over>)

    John Kerry's looking for oarsmen for a boating trip up the Charles River.

    Obama still thinks he's the chosen one, just not too sure what he was chosen to do.

  • bushlikesdick2

    Brown won for 2 reasons:
    Coakley loss because she ran her campaign on the arrogant assumption that her incompetent campaign would be a shoe in a blue state. Brown won because he won his competent grassroots campaign on other issues than the Obama's health care bill that independents are disifranchised about.

    If the stock market is any idication, health stocks ( GOP special interest) help raised the Dow Jones 100 points on the day of who the prospective winner was and then the Dow Jones fell over 200 points today based in part to the partisan B.S. ( again, GOP special interest) in general which shows you that the GOP gives a rats ass about the U.S. interest as a whole — just their special interest constituents.

  • bushlikesdick2

    Brown won for 2 reasons:
    Coakley loss because she ran her campaign on the arrogant assumption that her incompetent campaign would be a shoe in a blue state. Brown won because he won his competent grassroots campaign on other issues than the Obama's health care bill that independents are disifranchised about.

    If the stock market is any idication, health stocks ( GOP special interest) help raised the Dow Jones 100 points on the day of who the prospective winner was and then the Dow Jones fell over 200 points today based in part to the partisan B.S. ( again, GOP special interest) in general which shows you that the GOP gives a rats ass about the U.S. interest as a whole — just their special interest constituents.

    • Tim

      Or perhaps the Stock Market went down a couple of hundred points based on the idea that Congress is looking to add an additional 1.9 trillion to our debt, as it hit the msm news outlets in the past 24 hours or so?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

    Linda, I don't know what happened to your posts, or the links. I've contributed to the Seals' defense, and used the following website:
    http://www.freetheseals.com/