Republican Scott Brown Wins Kennedy Senate Seat Massachusetts

.... so they vote the party back in that caused the need for change in the first place.

That is the funny thing about American voters. The Democrats and Republicans just pass the power back and forth to each other. Each knows that they don't really have to try because the two party system has such a stronghold.

It's time that America starts taking other parties more seriously.

 

Ah. you ADMIT that it's spin. That means I can safely ignore most of what you wrote except for this:

What an ignorant thing to write.

Ah, Zibby, Zibby, Zibby...

For a Republican to be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, there must be a perfect storm of the Democrats running a bad campaign and the Republican running a brilliant campaign. BOTH must happen.

Brown ran an inspired campaign. Brown ran a brilliant campaign. Since I live in Boston and you don't, you should take my word for it, but in case you won't let me give you an example of how brilliant a campaign Brown ran:

Mass. is divided into three broad areas, inside 495 (where Boston & the suburbs are), Cape Cod, and West of 495. West of 495 likes to complain that Boston gets all the attention and that they are ignored.

Obama flies in to put Coakley's campaign on life-support by giving an indoor speech in Boston to a few hundred people. At the very same time Brown drives his famous truck to Worcester (West of 495) and gives a speech to a crowd of 4,000+. Obama's speech is carried inside 495, but west of 495 all the local TV stations carry Brown. Result? Polling the day after Obama left showed that Brown picked up another 2%.

Another genius move by Brown: Obama disses Brown's truck in his speech. Brown counters by reminding everyone that he drives a G.M. truck with over 200,000 miles on it. Whoops! Obama's witty quip is now turned around by Mr. Brown.

Yet another genius move by Brown: Coakley was ahead by ~20% in December. Last year, Brown spent most of his time driving through Mass in his truck, talking to people below the radar. he didn't make his move until three weeks before the election with his TV ads. By the time the election came around, he was ahead by 10% in the polls. HAD THE ELECTION BEEN HELD THREE WEEKS FROM THEN the Democrats would have had time to get their act together, bring in the special interests, and defeat Brown. Instead, Brown timed it perfectly to guarantee his win.

This makes sense.

What a load of useless crap. Of course, for any Republican to win the Senate seat in Mass, he MUST be special. Please re-read what I wrote above and tell me how what Scott Brown did is anything but special. Please look at this Scott Brown website and notice all the different organizations he has been involved in that are responsible for job creation.

"Marcia" Coakley was/is a common politician, an empty shirt who ran an extremely negative campaign as part of a corrupt political machine. Scott Brown ran a brilliant campaign because he is a brilliant leader. And I live in Boston.

 

He ran a good campaign and what he did was special. I agree with that. That does not mean he is anything special relative to other politicians in D.C. As for job creation, in the end it is the market that creates jobs and if Brown's past is any example, he is not as capitalist as others. Cut taxes and create confidence in the dollar if you want to create jobs, don't spend your way to it. I know Brown is against the health care bill and that is awesome, but we will see what he does and does not support spending-wise before saying he is something special because in the past he hasn't hesitated to support big spending projects.

 

Off topic: Corwin, do you listen to Savage?

 

No. Without Googling, I think you are referring to Michael Savage? I know the name, but I don't know who he is.

I do listen to Howie Carr sometimes (although he's on when I am working). I like that Howie is all about Massachusetts, but sometimes he goes too far for me. I'm too impatient to listen to Rush - he takes five minutes to say something he can say in 30 seconds.

 

The Republicans may retake the Senate in the 2010 elections. 36 of the 100 seats are up for election.

Ronald Reagan said that "Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem"

The US is going back to what it was in the 1970s. The only jobs that are being created are government jobs. It's just not sustainable without mega-borrowing and substantial increases in taxes.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Jan 2010 at 09:45:03 PM GMT is:

 

Not to mention that with every job the government "creates" it almost always effectively destroys 1+ jobs in the private sector. The bureaucracy and relative lack of productivity of government usually means that money would've create more jobs in the private sector anyway.

 

It was reported today that for the first time Unionized Public Workers outnumber those in the private sector.

 

Wouldn't surprise me. Remember the saying, if you can't fight them join them? Well government tends to do a modified version of that: if you can't fight them, buy them*

*side effects may be an unstable economy, lack of productivity, and susceptibility to special interests

 

There's going to be trouble in the future when someone attempts to check the growth of government. All the public workers could call a general strike and shut whichever city or state down.

Another big issue is that the pensions for public sector employees are $2 trillion underfunded.