Quote:

---

It's a well-deserved butt-kicking, for not standing with the backbone of America. Too bad peeps don't realize that Repubs are even worse Wall-Street/ big bizness suck-ups.

---

Quote:

---

Apparently not so much in this instance. From the analysis I've seen the Democrats seemed to think that their taking the seat was such a forgone conclusion that they didn't do the campaign work needed to win, and the Republicans did.

I was listening to the Kojo Nnamdi show yesterday and they were talking about the same thing in regards to Pres. Obama's first-year performance. The guests suggested that, once he was elected, the folks who'd worked so hard to get him in office thought their job was done and he should take it from there.

---

Quote:

---

Poll after poll showed that the majority wanted real healthcare reform: Tax the rich, Medicare for all... something gorram SIMPLE and effective, not this multi-legged monstrosity. Baucus, Nelson etc were NOT representing their constituents. They did get tons of letters, but what are a few letter compared to twenty million dollars in your campaign coffers? The Dem party's mistake was not being bold enough, using this first, historic year to play footsie while people were losing jobs and dying for help.

The mistake that peeps make is thinking that the Repubs are any better. The big no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout was started under BUSH by Paulson, after all.

---

Quote:

---

The Democrats lost this seat because they deserved to. They took their voters for granted, and they didn't even try to woo them. Hell, Ted Kennedy's widow campaigned harder for Coakley that Coakley did for herself. It was assumed that the seat would ALWAYS be Democratic, just as it was ASSUMED that the New York 23rd Congressional District was going to always go to the Republican, right up until it didn't.

And honestly, for all the Democrats have done with their supposed "filibuster-proof" majority, do they actually DESERVE to keep it? I mean, if they can't do anything anyway, what's the point of electing them?

Jongsstraw- arrogance, yes. And the willingness to do "politics as usual" ... placate Wall Street with shitloads of money and placate the health insurances with backroom deals, serving John and Jane Doe up on a platter to the moneyed interests.

Poll after poll showed that the majority wanted real healthcare reform: Tax the rich, Medicare for all... something gorram SIMPLE and effective, not this multi-legged monstrosity. Baucus, Nelson etc were NOT representing their constituents. They did get tons of letters, but what are a few letter compared to twenty million dollars in your campaign coffers? The Dem party's mistake was not being bold enough, using this first, historic year to play footsie while people were losing jobs and dying for help.

The mistake that peeps make is thinking that the Repubs are any better. The big no-strings-attached Wall Street bailout was started under BUSH by Paulson, after all.

---

Quote:

---

The only problem is the idiots who think that a republican is any better.

---

Quote:

---

There was criticism of Obama from the panelists on the Kojo show yesterday for throwing the health-care reform design job to the Congress, instead of presenting them with a well-defined and coordinated package. Maybe he saw what happened when Clinton tried that, and went another way.

---

Quote:

---

Well that's how he campaigned, and that's how he won.

---

Quote:

---

This vote was not so much a referendum on him personally, but an angry slap-down to Pelosi-Reid's policies and actions.

---

Quote:

---

He’s not a moderate, he’s right wing, and strongly so. He was criticized by the Sun Chronicle editorial page for "his extreme positions on choice, gender, and other social questions". Brown opposes a proposed multi-billion dollar tax on banks and prescribing bank executive compensation. Brown, discussing the proposal through a spokesperson, said that "he is opposed to higher taxes, especially in the midst of a severe recession". Brown stated that he continues to support religious hospitals in refusing to provide emergency contraception, causing the woman to go to another hospital. an amendment he sponsored in 2005, which, according to The Boston Globe, "would have allowed a doctor, nurse or hospital to deny rape victims an emergency contraceptive if it 'conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.'" Yes, later Brown had later supported the overall bill that required emergency rooms to provide the contraceptives to rape victims.

After Martha M. Coakley stated in their campaign debate that she opposes sending more troops because terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda "are gone" from the country, a statement supported by General McChrystal himself, Brown, along with a group of veterans, attacked her statement. Brown advocates that suspected terrorists be tried in military tribunals and not civilian courts.

Earlier in his career, he favored an amendment to the state constitution barring same-sex marriage and allowing the provision for civil unions. During a State Senate debate in 2001, Brown referred to the decision of his lesbian Democratic opponent, Cheryl Jacques, to have children as "not normal". He also described her parenting role as "alleged family responsibilities". Brown later apologized for the remarks. He favors creating parental consent laws for minors who seek an abortion.

Brown voted for a regional cap-and-trade system, and he later commented that he regretted the vote He opposes putting up a wind farm on Nantucket Sound, remarking, "It's like putting turbines on Boston Common".

---

Quote:

---

There's no doubt that Brown, who favors low taxes, less regulation, strong defense, and who is also pro-choice and pro-gun rights, fits the profile of his GOP colleagues in Massachusetts politics. He's a Scott Brown Republican, and also a Republican Republican.

---

Quote:

---

Brown's been a fixture in Massachusetts conservative politics since the early 1990s.... Brown likes "slinky girls" and he wasn't shy about taking his clothes off. "I'm not ashamed of my body," Brown told Cosmo. "I work hard enough to keep it in shape. When you go to the beach, you automatically seek out the best bodies, female and male. Why should it be different in a magazine?" "The fact is, when Scott was 22 years old, he was footloose and carefree." That may be so, but how would he be treated if he were a woman?

---

Quote:

---

Although a nude centerfold might not kill a female politician's career, it would most certainly prompt questions about her character. Was she unacceptably promiscuous? Did she have a wild, compromising youth? While we scoff at the exploits of young men─they're allowed to be "footloose and carefree"─women are rarely afforded that luxury. For Brown, who just turned 50, it's a case of "boys will be boys." We can giggle at Brown's treasure trail and not think twice about how the sight of it affects his political career. But when Sarah Palin's head was Photoshopped on the body of a gun-totin', bikini-clad babe, it served as evidence for many of her unsuitability for office. Even when the photo was proved to be fake, it continued to haunt her. Palin's sexuality was at once titillating and threatening─for as many fans as she gained for being attractive, there were as many who used it in building the case against her. If Barbara Boxer had posed nude in her youth and declared her love for "buff boys," I predict her voters would be collectively horrified, and she'd probably never shake the crass jokes that would follow. As a culture, we simply don't like our female representatives to be publicly sexual. But it probably won't matter much to the rest of his career. It's just one of the advantages of being a dude.

---

Quote:

---

It'll be interesting to see if the Democrats in Congress take the loss of the Mass. Senate seat as a wake-up call and try to get some sort of healthcare passed before Sen.-elect Brown takes his seat. I've heard of several strategies they might use to do this, including having the House accept the Senate version of the legislation without change, planning on amending it with later legislation to include House/Senate compromises.

---