Massachusetts Senate election

imme

Was real surprised that Coakley failed to hold the seat for the Democrats. The Tonight Show with Jon Stewart gave a real funny summary of her campaign failings.
Mitt Romney (candidate for Republican nomination in 2008 presidential election) was on the podium to introduce Brown to the crowd after his victory. Romney has no official position in the Republicans, but said he'd help out to get Rep candidates elected in the 2010 elections.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

The loss of this seat in Massachusetts was a great thing. Perhaps this can delay this monstrosity known as "Universal healthcare". It is madness and will only put America deeper into debt.

................

kev9100

I have to admit, Brown ran a good campaign and has pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in a long time. This really has left Dems in an awkward position. Although, I think if the House passes the exact same bill as the senate then health care reform is finished and it does'nt need to go back to the senate. Does anyone know for sure about this?

Fr Tod Umptious

The big looser here is Ted Kennedy

Back in 2004 is was instrumental in changing the law in Massachusetts so that an election would be held when a senate seat became vacant rather than the Governor selecting the person to fill the seat. This was in order to stop Mitt Romney (R) selecting the person to fill the seat that may be vacated by John Kerry (D) if he won the election.

before he died Ted tried to get the law changed back so that the now Governed Duval Patrick (D) could pick the replecement for Kennedy's seat.
Well it backfired, not only was the law not changed but the election ended up in a Republican senator

Plus Kennedy was a life long supporter of universal healthcare, now it looks like his successor will be the one to sink it.

Ayankabroad

Significant turning point in Obama's administration for a Republican to be successful in Massachusetts shows that there is no faith in the current healthcare plan. The concessions that were made to the unions and the tax on the cadillac plans did alot to benefit Mr. Brown

Manic Moran

Although, I think if the House passes the exact same bill as the senate then health care reform is finished and it does'nt need to go back to the senate. Does anyone know for sure about this?

I believe you to be correct, but the House and Senate bills have very fundamental differences between them. I'm not sure the Democrats can muster enough votes in the House to do it.

It's not necessarily the end of healthcare reform, but it very much could be the end of the (I think overachieving) attempt to completely redo multiple aspects of the American healthcare system. I think everyone's agreed that the system needs fixing, but maybe instead they can focus on a narrower area that achieves a little more support instead of trying to do everything in one glorious, historic, omnibus bill.

NTM

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although this is true, it is probably hard to attribute that sentiment to the plurality of Massachussets voters. MA's still a very, very 'Blue' State. So either Obama is really screwing up if he's getting a safely Democrat-leaning State to vote against him or the Democratic Party screwed up by nominating a poor candidate and taking 'their' seat for granted.

I'll go for the latter.

NTM

Was reading the Wall Street Journal which had something interesting to say; Massachusetts isn't a strongly Blue state as is often claimed (half of it's voters are independants, only 25% are Democrats, fair few Republican governors) and they lost out heavily at the notion of paying taxes for something the Massachusetts people would see no benefit from (healthcare, given they already have a state system)

Something interesting in there I think, given the Kennedy personal cult.

Pocono Joe

Looks like the republican party isn't dead after all. (that's be best rubbing it in I can muster??? Really must be out of it after the surgery )

ynotdu

kev9100 wrote: »

Ah ****. How in the name of God can a Republican win Teddy Kennedys seat? The dems have screwed up big time here.

That is true,and by all accounts i heard today even Coakly has admitted that.
I guess my first reaction should have been one of Congratulations to Brown,but if i lived in America i know i would be a Democrat party supporter.none of the partie's are perfect but the Republicans are just not My cup of tea,So to Brown supporters can i say a belated Congratulations.It was a free and fair election and he won.

excuse My shock at the result and forgive My attachment to the Kennedys{You can guess the reasons:)}

My problem with the whole system is a Candidate needs to start running at least 18 months before the Election.The newly elected President has if he is lucky enough to carry both house's about 18 months to push through his agenda before he lose's one or both house's,this cripples him.
apparently the founding fathers put in the mid-terms to let a new administration know it had to behave.

It is SO diffrient to the Irish system in that the 'party whip' does not apply and Obama may after even more bartering get the votes he needs for health care reform from enough Republicans.

What i cannot comprehend from a Country so full of Christianity is WHY the death penalty still exists in so many states?

WHY is there such anomosity towards Universal health care?{once there are safeguards to prevent abuse}

and the right to bear arms is still enshrined?{many murders would not happen if guns were not so easy to get in the states,IMO}
I think there is more to it than just dollars?

even though i have said i would be a natural Democrat voter,i have recently read up on Ronald Reagan and admire him very much as a result of knowing the FACTS about him rather than the fiction!
To Me it seems He was the right man at the right time and could overcome almost any cross party political divide.

one more thing if someone is kind enough to answer:Is it true that the two term limit only came into being because of Nixon's carry-on?

Cheers

GuanYin

ynotdu wrote: »

What i cannot comprehend from a Country so full of Christianity is WHY the death penalty still exists in so many states?

WHY is there such anomosity towards Universal health care?{once there are safeguards to prevent abuse}

and the right to bear arms is still enshrined?{many murders would not happen if guns were not so easy to get in the states,IMO}
I think there is more to it than just dollars?

What dimension are you from where Christianity doesn't involve, murder, suffering and violence?

ynotdu

GuanYin wrote: »

What dimension are you from where Christianity doesn't involve, murder, suffering and violence?

Well I am not from the dimension that shoots dead doctors who carry out abortions because they believe human life is Sacred

Nagilum

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The big looser here is Ted Kennedy

Back in 2004 is was instrumental in changing the law in Massachusetts so that an election would be held when a senate seat became vacant rather than the Governor selecting the person to fill the seat. This was in order to stop Mitt Romney (R) selecting the person to fill the seat that may be vacated by John Kerry (D) if he won the election.

before he died Ted tried to get the law changed back so that the now Governed Duval Patrick (D) could pick the replecement for Kennedy's seat.
Well it backfired, not only was the law not changed but the election ended up in a Republican senator

Plus Kennedy was a life long supporter of universal healthcare, now it looks like his successor will be the one to sink it.

It won't bring her back, but somewhere Mary Jo Kopechne is smiling at Ted's fail on this.

GuanYin

ynotdu wrote: »

Well I am not from the dimension that shoots dead doctors who carry out abortions because they believe human life is Sacred

A whole dimension does that? or a whole universe within a dimension? or a whole galaxy within a universe? or a whole planet within a galaxy? Or a whole country on a planet? Or just a group of nutcases in a country?

That said, I'm more interested why you equate Christianity with non-violence when you have two thousand years of evidence to the contrary?

sceptre

ynotdu wrote: »

one more thing if someone is kind enough to answer:Is it true that the two term limit only came into being because of Nixon's carry-on?

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with anything going on in Mass. but the answer is no. It was done via the 22nd amendment, which got passed around 1950.

ynotdu

GuanYin wrote: »

A whole dimension does that? or a whole universe within a dimension? or a whole galaxy within a universe? or a whole planet within a galaxy? Or a whole country on a planet? Or just a group of nutcases in a country?

That said, I'm more interested why you equate Christianity with non-violence when you have two thousand years of evidence to the contrary?

Two thousand years at least of ALL religions being contrary to Peace!
BTW what dimension are You from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbw2GD0t3T4

ynotdu

sceptre wrote: »

Pretty sure this has nothing to do with anything going on in Mass. but the answer is no. It was done via the 22nd amendment, which got passed around 1950.

I did'nt say it had anything to do with the result in Mass,Sceptre it was just something i was curious about that was not worthy of a new thread.
Thank you though.

phantom_lord

how's peter schiff getting on in connecticut? how likely is he to win the nomination there?

Stella777

As a slightly silly aside, can you believe that the newly elected senator posed nude in a Cosmopolitian Magazine centerfold? I'm not kidding. Not sure if I should post the photo here or in The Ladies' Longue "Men Who Make You Drool" thread.

Granted it was when he was a young law student, but still...

Manic Moran

ynotdu wrote: »

What i cannot comprehend from a Country so full of Christianity is WHY the death penalty still exists in so many states?

Off-topic, but an interesting theological question.

On the one hand, you have phrases like Exodus 21: "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Levictus 24: "“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God"

Deutronomy 19: "But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you"

Now, on the other hand, you have
Matthew 38: "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles"

This is taken by some as a repudiation of the others. On the other hand, it is also taken by others and admonition against individual vigilanteeism.

WHY is there such anomosity towards Universal health care?{once there are safeguards to prevent abuse}

To a large extent, it's in the details. For example, most opponents to universal healthcare would probably not object to covering some poor unfortunate who had no money to buy insurance, was walking across the street, and got hit by a meteorite. However, when universal healthcare also covers complete idiocy such as "I decided to tape a firework to my buttocks and light it," (and yes. people have done that. Even posted on Youtube) they start to have a few more issues with their hard-earned money being paid out to cover it.

and the right to bear arms is still enshrined?{many murders would not happen if guns were not so easy to get in the states,IMO}

God helps those who helps themselves. And self defence is quite acceptable in the bible.

Luke 22: "Then he said to them, "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one."

However. the right to arms is more founded on practical matters than religious ones.

NTM

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

On the one hand, you have phrases like Exodus 21: "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Levictus 24: "“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God"

Deutronomy 19: "But if anyone hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him and attacks him and strikes him fatally so that he dies, and he flees into one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may be well with you"

In fairness, you're relying heavily on the Old Testament which is a completely different kettle of fish (it relies on a nomadic people attempting to forge a state in the desert against all kinds of tribes) so it's filled with all kinds of archaic rules (not eating pork, cutting your beard, wearing a coat of two different materials etc)

Christians are meant to rely more heavily on the New Testament, I'm not sure about smaller denomincations but Catholics (largest Church in the US) hold the difference between moral/ceremonial and judicial. The Old Testament was the best logic of it's time but it needs to be read in a modern context (the idea of selling our daughters into slavery as in Exodus 21;7 would be reprehensible to us today)

Manic Moran wrote: »

Now, on the other hand, you have
Matthew 38: "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles"

This is taken by some as a repudiation of the others. On the other hand, it is also taken by others and admonition against individual vigilanteeism.

It also has Jesus standing up for a condemned woman; let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord etc.

Manic Moran wrote: »

God helps those who helps themselves. And self defence is quite acceptable in the bible.

Luke 22: "Then he said to them, "But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one."

However. the right to arms is more founded on practical matters than religious ones.

NTM

You're quoting it out of context, here's the passage in full;

Luke 22;
35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

Jesus is facing arrest/crucifixion and yet views 2 swords as sufficient for the 12 of them.
Reason for this being that he is to be numbered among the criminals (lawless) and put to death to fulfill the prophecy. Criminals carry weapons which his apostles needed to carry to mark him as a criminal.
Or so is my interpretation of it.


New Testament also says things like "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matthew 26;52)



Sorry to have dragged this off topic but I just wanted to set the record straight there.

Pocono Joe

Jaysus… I take a few days off to wallow in pain and self pity, and what happens… the site crashes, the MA Scott decision becomes the death blow to democrats, and Christianity has become the devils work. Has the silly season started?

First off, the Scott decision is neither a win for republicans or a defeat for democrats, but a wake up call that independants will now set the tone for some time to come. So can Barack Obama learn from this and salvage his presidency, and do some greater good as Bill Clinton learned and did back in 1996 (see transcript below) after a shift of the people’s voice, or is Obama’s ego just too big, knowing full well that he is just sooo much more intellegent that the rest of us? I think some in gov't better consider the Tea Party movement a little more seriously going forward.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9601/budget/01-27/clinton_radio/


And Chirstianity has served as the basis for most, if not all, of the greatest democracies our world has ever witnessed. Even with all the flaws. And until we decide to march all 30 year old liberals off to Carousel in hopes of Renewal (relax, just kidding ), I’ll take our current system, with all its blemishes.

(Back to my meds, so I can keep on singing … “my neck bone is connected to my hip bone…”)

Manic Moran

It also has Jesus standing up for a condemned woman; let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord etc.

On the other hand, this whole 'turn the other cheek' business is not followed in any country that I'm aware of. By the strict interpretation, that would mean that our police forces should just identify and then the government publicly forgive all malfeasants. It's an argument in favour of the 'anti-vigilante' interpretation.

New Testament also says things like "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matthew 26;52)

You don't think that if he had an automatic aversion to swords, he might have suggested to his friend that really it's something he shouldn't have with him at some point earlier in their relationship? It's not as if he likely didn't notice it before. Bear in mind that if having the swords is supposed to be part of the Luke plan of their looking like criminals, it's probably fair to say that the chap who lopped off the soldier's ear seems to have rather missed that fundamental point of the memo. A common reading of that passage is basically "Don't resort to the sword unless you have to." Living by the sword is a choice you make. Reacting with the sword is another matter. Even God's representative on Earth (i.e. Pope John Paul II) has signed off on killing people when necessary.

NTM

kev9100

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And Chirstianity has served as the basis for most, if not all, of the greatest democracies our world has ever witnessed.

What democracies are you talking about? I cant think of any democracies off the top of my head that were based on Christinaity, with the exception of the Republic of Ireland I suppose.

Black Swan

The loss of the MA seat in the US Senate should be a wake-up call for the Dems, and should warn them that they could end up losing their majority in one of the Houses of Congress just like the Republicans lost their majority in the US House of Representatives during the last term of the Bush administration? But Dems being Dems, they will continue fighting among themselves, and ignore the meaning of the old political maxim, "It's the economy stupid!" They lost their focus over health care reform during Obama's first term, when they should have focused on three things only: Economic recovery, and ending the associated drain on the treasury of the two wars started by Bush-Cheney years before.

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

What democracies are you talking about? I cant think of any democracies off the top of my head that were based on Christinaity, with the exception of the Republic of Ireland I suppose.

Im my opinion, and probably a few million others, Christianity is largely responsible for many of the principles and institutions that have forged our current western democracies... chief among them equality and liberty.
Even Nietzsche (everyones favorite atheist) conceded that the ideas that define Western civilization are based on Christianity.

Soldie

phantom_lord wrote: »

how's peter schiff getting on in connecticut? how likely is he to win the nomination there?

I don't think Schiff stands a chance, unfortunately. Most of his publicity seems to come from a vlog on YouTube that he updates every other day, as he doesn't appear to be getting much of a mention in the local media. I've watched most of his videos, and the overwhelming majority of them are on the economy. He's coming across as being very single-issue -- he hasn't said much, or anything at all, in the way of foreign policy or healthcare, with the exception of an economic critique of the current reform bill. So far he's only raised around $1,500,000, too -- I'd say Linda McMahon could find more in her sofa.

ynotdu

The good thing here is the the 'war on terror' clash of cultures,religions role& people expressing their genuine belief in Party affiliation etc is that free speech is TOP of the agenda:)

We have got to find a way to "jaw jaw,not war war" or as i have said in another thread the war of ideolgies will lead to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by a Country frustrated by the cost of 'war on terror' in terms of
loss of troops and civilions.

should that happen who can be sure that it would stop at 'tactical'weapons?
another enormous outrage cannot and IMO will not be tolerated by ANY Country that can strike back hard.

IMO it is a very dangerous time medioum term,and extremists{by which i mean those who will not even consider a peace of sorts cannot be allowed to in effect force Govt.s to appease them}

They must realise that human life is Sacred to rational people, but even rational people have their breaking point!and will not let terrorists set the Worlds agenda forever.

Overheal

ynotdu wrote: »

Well I am not from the dimension that shoots dead doctors who carry out abortions because they believe human life is Sacred

Ostensibly yes, you are.

ynotdu

Overheal wrote: »

Ostensibly yes, you are.

Ah now Overheal hav'nt ya heard of being Magnanimos in victory?:D

Oh and as i learn more there was more Independants than Republican or Democrat registered voters ;-)

sceptre

You guys are aware that this thread is about the Massachusetts Senate election?

Sharp turns back on topic would be appreciated, ironically I've seen drunk people drive off bridges that were more focussed.

/mod