Political Tsunami

Today in Massachusetts, disgruntled voters have sent a powerful, loud, and clear message to Washington: We're tired of your crap. Following the death of Ted Kennedy, a special election was called to fill his vacant seat in the US Senate. As little as two weeks ago, it was all but certain that the Democrat, Martha Coakley, would win the seat without a fight. No Republican has held a Senate seat there in 40 years, and nobody thought it was possible, but tonight, with a 52-47 percent result, Scott Brown has performed the miracle in the bluest of blue states.

Brown's election to the Senate will set off a political tsunami for the year to come. The first and most immediate effect is that the filibuster proof 60 man majority is gone. This almost certainly means the Obamacare bill is now dead in the water as other Senators are now calling for Brown to be seated immediately. Other dangerous legislation such as Cap n Trade and Global Warming bills are now in jeopardy and are unlikely to pass. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that once the wake-up call is issues, most congresspeople will sit on their hands and do nothing for fear of losing their jobs.

The margin of victory of 5 points puts him beyond the ability of a recount to salvage through traditional Democrat shenanigans. The only thing they may yet try to pull is a delay in his certification. However, should this happen, it would almost certainly enrage an electorate already angry with the Dems in Congress and with Obama himself. Folks, the tea party movement has scored its first victory in what's going to be a long line of them come November 2010. This is only the beginning of the revolution. Scott Brown's election is the modern day equivalent to the shot heard round the world.

We cannot let our guard down though, there will be sneaky tactics used, more back room deals are sure to come, and one never knows if a spineless Rino will turn against the will of the people. It doesn't matter. Massachusetts has articulated what most of us already feel. We're mad as hell, and not going to take any more of it.
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Year In Review
Martian Spirit »

Posted on Jan 19, 2010 11:13 pm by Samson in: | 36 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Who'd have thought the Kennedy family would lose Massachusetts?? But I have to agree, this should be sending a VERY loud and clear message to congress, but honestly, so should the Tea Parties have months ago. Hopefully, congress will heed the warning this time and we can avoid the unpleasantness of a full scale civil war, which is where the movement to specifically uphold and assert the 10th amendment was heading. Of course, the 14th amendment prevents anyone from publishing any sort of direct promotion of a civil war, but if congress doesn't wake up, it'll be awfully hard pressed to prevent folks from collectively acting without literature... particularly if they continue blindly following Obama's lead. Even USA Today admitted, the day before yesterday, that Obama's losing his popularity, and they even seem liberal leaning to me. Of course, on their front page today (website), they've got a poll asking "How will the Mass. election results affect the Democrats, Obama agenda?" of the public and it's showing, currently, with 8304 votes in, that 52% have voted for "GOP takes back the House in 2010", while 28% have said "Even health care overhaul can't pass", and 13% went with "Health care barely passes, but that's it", and a whole 7% are holding out that "No effect. Health care, other key bills pass." Personally, I'm with the majority on that poll.

       
If it was a Kennedy running maybe the story might have been different, no one can deny that all the Kennedy's have a certain charisma, likableness and air of trustworthiness about them, be it real or manufactured that endures them to the people. Scott Brown certainly has big shoes to fill and lets hope he plays a Ted Kennedy esc roll of doing what is right and not just what the party wants.

       
You know, given that you're not even in the United States, that's actually quite a remarkable statement. Essentially, you're pointing out that the reputation of the Kennedy family has reached the entire globe and that Ted Kennedy's personal reputation preceded him around the world as well. Not that I'm at all willing to dispute it at all, just saying it's impressive that the whole world knows about even one of our former senators from a state so small that quite frequently it gets lumped together with the other North Eastern Most states as 'New England'... I hope that Scott Brown does manage to fill the shoes that Ted left behind, but honestly I think his election itself may have already served the real purpose on its own.

       
I'd prefer he didn't try to fill Kennedy's shoes as his drunken waste of a life wasn't doing anyone any good there anyway. Scott Brown wasn't elected to become another Kennedy clone. He was elected to put and end to that sort of thing. Time will tell though. It is Massachusetts after all :)

       
Well, you have a point there, I'd certainly hope that Scott Brown (the rest of congress too for that matter) didn't waste his life, or tax payer time/money, by being drunk regularly (should any of them have an excuse for being drunk even infrequently?). But as for being another Kennedy clone, well, as you say, it is Massachusetts and he was elected by the populace there... I'd think they seem to generally like the sorts of things the Kennedy family has done for the last 40 years. On the other hand, he's a Brown, not a Kennedy, so he probably can't get away with nearly the number of, nor outlandish levels, things that a true Kennedy could. The folks up there loved the Kennedy family enough to ignore quite a few things that would get any other politician in big trouble, just ask that fellow down in South Carolina, Governor Sanford, wasn't it? Nobody dared to make a big deal when JFK wanted to play with Marilyn on the side... ;)

       
The Kennedy's are a global phenomenon, i probably know just as much about them as either of you do, as at times they can be all over our media.

@Samson The shoes aspects im referring about are not the mans flaws, but that he was liked and respected on both sides of parliament because he was someone who people could work with to achieve things.

I liked Ted Kennedy, not because he was on the side of politics that i often subscribe to, but because he was more often than not bipartisan in his political career. Here in Australia there are a number of conservatives who i would give preferences to or vote for if i was in their electorate because they are very much similar in their own approaches of not following the party line for the party line sake, but will often cross the floor when it is in the countries interests to do so.

IMO Ted Kennedy seemed to be less about party ideology and more about doing what he thought was in the best interests of the country and there needs to be more like him on both sides, as party politics seems to be becoming more and more about ideology and less about good governance.

The conservatives here blocked the passage of a bill just recently that only a year or so ago was, with minor changes conservative party policy. It was good enough to be policy when they were in government and now its not because they are in opposition. Its like na nananana we will oppose everything because we are in opposition. No wonder i am drawn to 1 party systems where things get done, party politics ends up being a game, pretty much like a prisoners dilemma matrix and everyone is left with sub ultimate outcomes, even tho, there is a Pareto superior outcome to be enjoyed if only people acted differently.

So I hope that Brown is less about party ideology and more about working with whomever he needs to, be that democrat, republican or flying spaghetti monster, to get the job done and gain better outcomes for his constituents, because that is how his predecessor worked.

Peace out

The_Fury


       
If he has the option of working with a flying spaghetti monster, I for one, would really think it in the best interest of the country, perhaps the world, for him not to work with it.. ;) :D

       
If he has the option of working with a flying spaghetti monster, I for one, would really think it in the best interest of the country, perhaps the world, for him not to work with it.. ;) :D


Or he could catch it, breed it up and use it to feed the poor, has to be cheaper than unemployment benefits and food stamps :).

       
Ted Kennedy? Bipartisan? Are we even talking about the same man? Kennedy was as liberal as liberal got in the Senate. There wasn't a bipartisan bone in the man's body. Either you're being deliberately ignorant or your media is filtered to such an extent you never saw the guy for what he really was.

BTW: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/chappaquiddick.htm That'll give you an idea of the type of person the pig was.

       
The_Fury said:

Conner said:

If he has the option of working with a flying spaghetti monster, I for one, would really think it in the best interest of the country, perhaps the world, for him not to work with it.. ;) :D

Or he could catch it, breed it up and use it to feed the poor, has to be cheaper than unemployment benefits and food stamps :).

Um, yeah.. I suppose that might be an acceptable option, though I'd sort of prefer that, were he going in that general direction, he capture/breed it to sell to other countries and thus raise the capitol to fund what we've already spent here...

Um, Samson that 88 page pdf is pretty amazing.. how'd you know about that? I mean, honestly, that incident was fairly well covered up, as evidenced by the document you linked, and was a little before your time. (I know it was a little before your time because you and I are roughly the same age.) Not that that document reveals much about the Kennedy family we don't already know/suspect anyway given the numerous other allegations against them over the years, but that goes along with what I was saying before about the good people of Massachusetts loving the Kennedy family enough to let them get away with, well, murder. ;) Maybe the people of Massachusetts are just too ashamed after the infamous witch trials of the 1700s to pursue prosecution of a Kennedy? ;)

       
Ted Kennedy? Bipartisan? Are we even talking about the same man?

BTW: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/chappaquiddick.htm That'll give you an idea of the type of person the pig was.



I do not think that anyone here is going to deny that the man has flaws, that he has done things that were regrettable and down right stupid. However, all this shows is that he is human and like all humans, bound to fail at some point in their lives and that this failure did not stop people voting for him and it did not stop both sides of parliament having a great respect for him.

A quick scan through republicans scandals reveiles some interesting names as well as some interesting crimes, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Dave Vitter and lets not forget President Bush's own spiritual advisor, Ted Haggard. Or from just this year, Mike Duval, Paul Stanley, John Ensign, Davil Allen Berlin and Chip Pickering.

So, politicians are people, who, like the rest of us can do bad things, i think what really matters here is not the flaws of the people, but weather the balance sheet is in favor of good over bad, and I think that Ted Kennedy's ballance sheet is well in favor of good over bad. 40 years in offices is certainly testimony to that, as well as the works of respect and admiration that came from the opposite side of politics when he was ill or after he was dead.

       
Actually, why do the vast majority of Republican scandals seem to be about sex and Democratic ones seem to be about money. Seems to me that this shows that age old bible quote to hold true, "Where there is Law, Sin abounds.

       
Flaws? I'm sorry, but this goes way beyond flaws. The man was a murderer who escaped justice. In my mind he was a fugitive in plain sight. He should have been arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for what he did. But because he was a Kennedy, everyone was afraid to touch him.

His balance sheet could never be righted in favor of good over bad after killing that woman and never being held accountable. His policies were always dangerous leftist liberalism. His 40 years in office isn't testament to anything other than the people of Massachusetts being asleep at the switch the whole time.

Actually, why do the vast majority of Republican scandals seem to be about sex and Democratic ones seem to be about money.


Because your media is so filtered you never see the Dems who get busted for sex unless it's a huge big thing like John Edwards and the baby turning out to be his after all. As if we're stupid enough to have thought otherwise. Or Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. Aside from those, there's gobs of Dems who have done sleazy sex things but you never hear about it.

       
Sorry, Fury, Samson's right about this one. Literally getting away with murder ranks quite a bit worse than offering Monica a puff or two from the built-in cigar... and America was up in arms over that silliness. It's also not the only time a Kennedy has gotten away with what should've been a scandal but instead it was very neatly cleaned up and hushed up.

Samson already quite nicely explained the answer to your pondering about republicans being in sex scandals, I figure that almost all politicians practice blowing smoke up everyone's arse so frequently that affairs and other sorts of sex related scandals just come naturally to them. ;) But seriously, there are easily no political boundaries when it comes to scandal in this country, and sex is often one of the ones that really get attention. What I don't get is why we Americans consider it such a big deal when a politician has an affair to begin with. It's not like we consider it a big deal when one of our other neighbors has one. And it's not really like his/her sexual life should matter to any of us. I suppose you could argue that we're afraid if (s)he'll cheat on his/her spouse then what's to say (s)he's not lying to us about stuff, but the flaw in that argument is that we already knew before we elected them to office in the first place, if in nothing else than the ludicrous campaign promises we all expect.

       
What I don't get is why we Americans consider it such a big deal when a politician has an affair to begin with. It's not like we consider it a big deal when one of our other neighbors has one


Yeah i dont really get it either, to me, its not such a big deal. The only time that it is a deal to me is when it goes against your party policy. Concervatives tend towards anti homosexuality, pro life and the churches view on the sancttiy of marrage between a man and woman and anti divorce et al, so its kind of ironic that they have a higher proprotion of sexual scandles.

Now a couple of those names i mentioned above were kiddy fiddling pedo's, which is i am sure we all agree is not something to be tollerated and IMO certainly much worse than accidently killing someone in an automobile accident.

       
Who you screw around with and when is a matter that should be left to you and your family, no matter who you are or what you do. Politicians should be treated no differently.

Conservatives don't have a higher rate of sexual scandals. You are again seeing that through the filtered lens of a left wing media bias. They get reported on more because the left has a vested interest in making the right look bad. It sounds conspiratorial, but it's entirely true and there's mountains of data to back it up.

Being a pedo would certainly not be good, no. And I might even be persuaded to buy the line that they're worse than accidental killers. However in Kennedy's case, it was no accident. The woman was alive after the crash, and he left her there to die and then engaged in a cover-up to bury the story. So in my mind that makes him beyond redemption. Which is why I considered him a fugitive in plain sight.

       
The_Fury said:

The only time that it is a deal to me is when it goes against your party policy.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think even that should be a big deal, it's still their personal matters. In fact, in my mind, it doesn't get any more personal than that. I think it becomes a matter of 'public interest' because sex sells and the media knows it. Beyond that, it's purely hypocritical.

I agree with Samson on most of the rest of this one. My one exception to this is the pedophile thing, in this country you can be branded a pedophile by anyone without proof and even if you offer proof of your innocence the courts can still decide that you were guilty solely because it's politically popular to show the judges and prosecutors have convicted more people of sexual crimes. Take a look at the sex offender registry sometime, you might be shocked to see what a large percentage of the people listed were convicted of "attempted" versions of sex crimes. Not to mention all the convictions for statuatory rape which can even mean an 18 year old was caught dating a 17 year old in this county, despite the fact that 16 is the age of consent in more than half the states of this county. So, basically what I'm saying is that just calling someone a pedophile doesn't mean they are one, despite the fact that this country doesn't care to take that into account.

Aside from all that (*stepping back down from his soap box*), I agree, we're not talking about an accidental death from a car accident, the evidence is there to give every indication that, in this case, the car was intentionally driven off a bridge to commit murder and then covered up but because it was Kennedy family members involved, the cover-up was successful. That's got to be worse than even being a pedophile. (Though I'm not convinced the courts would agree in this country, but that's a different rant...)

       
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think even that should be a big deal


If you are elected on a platform of morality, i think the constituents have a right to know if you are being immoral, or if you are pro life and you personally have had an abortion or assisted your children in having an abortion. The reason i believe this, is that there needs to be a certain level on honesty and integrity in the political system. People have a right to know when their elected member is doing something in contrast of the platform for which he was elected on, so next election the constituents can make an honest appraisal of the members performance and vote accordingly.

I do not think they should be dumped from the party or lose ministerial positions, be demoted and all that, those decisions should solely be in the hands of the people who vote and the ballot box should be the litmus test for those who show themselves to be hypocrites of their elected platforms and if their constituents don't care, then no one else should.

       
It's a fallacy that Republicans are being elected on a platform of morality. Social conservatism is a part of our politics, yes, but you'd be surprised at how many Republicans are left leaning and are as morally bankrupt as the Democrats. There's also Democrats who make the religious right look like whores.

So once again this is boiling down to a badly filtered media giving you the wrong impression, because plenty of Dems are hardline on social policy but they don't get busted for it when they try to enact policy based on that even if their voters didn't put them there for that purpose. It's only the right wingers who get busted for sex scandals when they got elected to be hardline on social policy.

I think perhaps you need to find some better media sources for perspective on US politics. It's not as cut and dry as you seem to think.

       
I can't begin to imagine what sort of fool would vote for a politician based solely on a platform of morality when we all know it takes a complete lack of morality to run for office in the first place. But, even a politician who did manage to get elected because of such a platform, as long as they're not breaking the law, even if their job is to try to change that very law, it's really not anyone's business. After all, maybe they're position of pro-life, in your example, is based upon the experience of having a daughter or wife or girlfriend go through the abortion process.

As Samson has said, it really sounds like you've misunderstood the republic we refer to as a democracy here.. especially when it comes to party distinctions.

       
Jesus, this guy didn't waste any time becoming a RINO: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2221899520100222

Duped on his very first vote into supporting a fake jobs bill. Granted, so far it was just a vote for cloture to end floor debate and bring it up for a final vote, but it looks like MA screwed up on this one after all.

Anyone who thinks that the "tax cuts" mentioned in the bill mean anything doesn't understand how business works. Tax breaks for unemployed workers being hired? Haven't these guys hears of the release-and-catch method of getting those tax breaks without hiring on new people? Gonna be a lot of taxpayer dollars sinking into the abyss on this one with no visible change in unemployment figures.

       
I wonder how much it's going to cost those unemployed victims when they're called in for interviews and told they've been hired and then come back only to learn they've been fired again for some bogus reason that doesn't entitle them to unemployment benefits anymore. (Thus reducing the unemployment figures artificially while earning these companies tax breaks they shouldn't be getting to begin with while costing the victim of the scam money for gas and new job attire, etc when they were already barely making it on unemployment insurance which they've now lost as well.)

I suppose it will make Obama look like he's finally doing something right though since it will let the media report that unemployment figures are down in direct response to the new jobs bill, even if they have to spin it to sound like they're saying that fewer people are still out of work.

       
That's exactly what's going to happen Conner. You understand the game and know how it's played. These tax breaks for keeping unemployed people on the books for a year ( to pad figures into 2011 ) will all likely get the boot sometime shortly thereafter which won't register in the statistics until well into 2012. So the liberals/progressives will be touting their fake jobs bill as a massive success when the reality is that nothing changes and all those people will be out of work with no way to collect their unemployment.

You can count on Obama making a huge play about this if it passes the final vote later today. They'll be hailing it as the greatest recovery of all time and be going on and on about how bipartisan it was. All the while, we'll not have noticed the pile of bribes the senators who voted for it got.

       
Samson said:

You understand the game and know how it's played.

Sadly, yes, I do. I've seen it happen before and even been a victim of it myself once. From the employee's perspective, there's not even really any way to foresee it nor anything you can do about it other than to pray you find something to serve as replacement employment quickly since the unemployment offices will not let you appeal it.

Samson said:

You can count on Obama making a huge play about this if it passes the final vote later today. They'll be hailing it as the greatest recovery of all time and be going on and on about how bipartisan it was. All the while, we'll not have noticed the pile of bribes the senators who voted for it got.

But of course! They're certainly not going to go bragging about the graft involved especially when they can instead fully capitalize on spinning it as their greatest achievement through "true bipartisanship" or some such utter BS.

       
By the way, in case anyone missed it amongst the Legalese hot topic flurry, Congress passed the jobs bill in question today. Amongst other facets (which are also listed on the site):
Reuters said:

* HIRING TAX CREDIT. Businesses that hire unemployed workers who have been out of work for at least two months would not have to pay the 6.2 percent payroll tax on these workers that funds Social Security. The government would make up that amount in the workers' Social Security accounts.

Employers also could get a $1,000 tax credit for each of these new hires who they retain for more than a year.

       
<< prev 1, 2 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31