What happens if Brown wins in Mass???

• Swamp Fox

  I don't think either side can trust Lieberman to vote in any particular way. He is an albatross. I think he likes the attention.
• cbus4life

  I will say again, i think Obama needs to calm down on the domestic agenda as well, at this point. The bill sucks, as far as health care is concerned. Live to fight another day, because if you sign this, you're effed for the rest of the presidency, AND YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK.
  
  Not the change i voted for, in terms of health care reform.
  
  Foreign policy...keep it up...Domestic policy...time to rethink and start doing some things that will offer REAL change. As that is what we need, as far as health care reform. The bill as it stands now is more of the BS same old same old.
• QuakerOats

  fish82 wrote:
  
  It won't affect Health Care in the slightest regardless of the outcome. The Dems have made it crystal clear they have zero intention of seating Brown until after the final vote.

  
  There will be blood in the streets if they try it ..... this country is boiling over.
• BCSbunk

  Writerbuckeye wrote: That this contest is even polling as closely as it is should be telling Obama that the public doesn't like his domestic agenda and to cool his heels.
  
  Of course, he's too arrogant to care what the people think, and his ego is too big to actually think twice before screwing over the country even more than he's already done.
  
  I can only hope the voters have longer memories than the typical American attention span so that there is hell to be paid in the voting booth over the next several years.

  I think you will be right. The voters will have longer memories and remember exactly why most of the Republicans lost their seats.
  
  No time to put the Republicans with their failed plans back into non-action. They have been in power the majority of the last 40 years. That is where the finger needs to be pointed.
  
  No sense putting what failed back in. I doubt the American people will vote a third party in and I doubt the Republicans have learned their lesson of not to fail the people as horribly as they have.
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: That this contest is even polling as closely as it is should be telling Obama that the public doesn't like his domestic agenda and to cool his heels.
  
  Of course, he's too arrogant to care what the people think, and his ego is too big to actually think twice before screwing over the country even more than he's already done.
  
  I can only hope the voters have longer memories than the typical American attention span so that there is hell to be paid in the voting booth over the next several years.

  I think you will be right. The voters will have longer memories and remember exactly why most of the Republicans lost their seats.
  
  No time to put the Republicans with their failed plans back into non-action. They have been in power the majority of the last 40 years. That is where the finger needs to be pointed.
  
  No sense putting what failed back in. I doubt the American people will vote a third party in and I doubt the Republicans have learned their lesson of not to fail the people as horribly as they have.

  You can't lay this stinker at the feet of the republicans. Both parties had their hands in the cookie jar. The republicans have not been the majority party in the federal government the last forty years. I'll go back a few more years and add the sixties in. Can't leave out the Great Society/Vietnam war.
  
  Starting with the 86th through today's 111th congress:
  Majority control
  Senate - Democrats 16 / Republicans 8 (107th was split)
  House - Democrates 19 / Republicans 6
  Executive - Repulicans 14 / Democrats 11
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
  
  You are right about a 3rd party. There is just not a viable one out there at this time. Have the republicans as a party learned their lesson? I doubt it. But some have. I just think we may have a better chance revolutinizing the Republican party and forcing it become more conservative/libertarian. Either way revolitionary change needs to happen in this country. Unfortunately it will probably take some kind of financial disaster to wake people up.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: That this contest is even polling as closely as it is should be telling Obama that the public doesn't like his domestic agenda and to cool his heels.
  
  Of course, he's too arrogant to care what the people think, and his ego is too big to actually think twice before screwing over the country even more than he's already done.
  
  I can only hope the voters have longer memories than the typical American attention span so that there is hell to be paid in the voting booth over the next several years.

  I think you will be right. The voters will have longer memories and remember exactly why most of the Republicans lost their seats.
  
  No time to put the Republicans with their failed plans back into non-action. They have been in power the majority of the last 40 years. That is where the finger needs to be pointed.
  
  No sense putting what failed back in. I doubt the American people will vote a third party in and I doubt the Republicans have learned their lesson of not to fail the people as horribly as they have.

  You can't lay this stinker at the feet of the republicans. Both parties had their hands in the cookie jar. The republicans have not been the majority party in the federal government the last forty years. I'll go back a few more years and add the sixties in. Can't leave out the Great Society/Vietnam war.
  
  Starting with the 86th through today's 111th congress:
  Majority control
  Senate - Democrats 16 / Republicans 8 (107th was split)
  House - Democrates 19 / Republicans 6
  Executive - Repulicans 14 / Democrats 11
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
  
  You are right about a 3rd party. There is just not a viable one out there at this time. Have the republicans as a party learned their lesson? I doubt it. But some have. I just think we may have a better chance revolutinizing the Republican party and forcing it become more conservative/libertarian. Either way revolitionary change needs to happen in this country. Unfortunately it will probably take some kind of financial disaster to wake people up.

  I should have been more clear and specific. The Presidents have been majority Republican and the Presidents are who sign those bills into law.
  
  A Republican President with a total Democratic congress can veto everything but alas they have not.
  
  I do agree that both parties have their hands in the cookie jar, but far too many on this website buy into the nonsense that the Republicans are good and the Democrats bad.
  
  The biggest concern is the full message that has been sent by both parties. The Democratic party believes big government will solve problems and boy oh boy do they follow their convictions on that. However the Republican party has boasted we are the small government party and that is outright disingenious.
  
  I do like the old adage better the devil you know than the one you do not. With Republicans dominating the Presidency I put most of the blame of them for their failure and lack of leadership in vetoing bills that should have never seen the light of day.
  
  Others can of course disagree however I would claim that most are Republican and therefore bias. I am neither Republican or Democrat and may not vote for any of them again until they show they represent the people and not corporations.
• believer

  

  BCSbunk wrote:They have been in power the majority of the last 40 years.That is where the finger needs to be pointed.

  What dumbass liberal revisionist history books have you been studying? The Republicans have been the majority party for the last 40 years? What???
  
  Let's try looking at the past 50 years shall we? Congressional majorities
  
  From 1961 through 1981, from 1987 through 1995, from 2001 through 2003, and from 2005 through 2010 the Democrats were the majority party in the Senate meaning majority status for 70% of the time. In fact the Dems controlled the Senate for a similar majority of time throughout the entire 20th Century.
  
  The Republicans were the House majority from 1995 through 2007 but the Dems controlled the House for 76% of the time the past 50 years.
  
  In all fairness, those 12 years may have seemed like 40 to liberals! lol
  
  Bottom-line: For vast majority of the past 50...no 100...years the Dems have controlled DC politics. In that time they (with the help of some wuss Republicans) have created bloated socialist entitlement programs, huge government bureaucracies that have systematically eroded personal liberties, and insane amounts of national debt.
  
  Do I think the Repubs would do a better job? In theory yes but they BLEW that opportunity in the 90's by spending like Democrats.
  
  FOOTNOTE: OK OK while I was typing this you corrected yourself by saying POTUS majority but even if the Repub prez vetoed Dem-sponsored bills in that time frame he never would have gotten what he wanted. Do you think the Dems would have allowed Reagan the money he wanted for a beefed up military if he hadn't agreed to Dem social spending in the 80's for example?
• BCSbunk

  believer wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote:They have been in power the majority of the last 40 years.That is where the finger needs to be pointed.

  What dumbass liberal revisionist history books have you been studying? The Republicans have been the majority party for the last 40 years? What???
  
  Let's try looking at the past 50 years shall we? Congressional majorities
  
  From 1961 through 1981, from 1987 through 1995, from 2001 through 2003, and from 2005 through 2010 the Democrats were the majority party in the Senate meaning majority status for 70% of the time. In fact the Dems controlled the Senate for a similar majority of time throughout the entire 20th Century.
  
  The Republicans were the House majority from 1995 through 2007 but the Dems controlled the House for 76% of the time the past 50 years.
  
  In all fairness, those 12 years may have seemed like 40 to liberals! lol
  
  Bottom-line: For vast majority of the past 50...no 100...years the Dems have controlled DC politics. In that time they (with the help of some wuss Republicans) have created bloated socialist entitlement programs, huge government bureaucracies that have systematically eroded personal liberties, and insane amounts of national debt.
  
  Do I think the Repubs would do a better job? In theory yes but they BLEW that opportunity in the 90's by spending like Democrats.

  I revised the comment look one post up. No revisionist history the Republicans have dominated the Presidency and have failed us. They have veto power and could stop most of the spending and/or slow it down to a snails pace but they have not.
• believer

  

  ^^^See my revision above!
• BCSbunk

  believer wrote: ^^^See my revision above!

  I think when a party says it is for small government (Republican) it should show it not just say it. Our defense budget is far overbloated and our government is just too large. We already know the Democrats mantra is big government is good but at least they are honest in their approach. IF I were President there would NO spending NOT ONE SINGLE DIME for NOTHING until the deficit was under control and we then ran a balanced budget.
  
  The problem is I would be voted out after one term because I was not affording people their pet projects. However spending money you don't have I do not feel is a recipe for a successful longterm economy but thats just me.
• Swamp Fox

  When you mention re-making the Republican party by revolutionizing them into a more conservative/liberterian group, I'm afraid you will continue to drive away your moderates and certainly the more liberal Republicans and I don't think it will appear very revolutionary. I think it will appear more reactionary. I am reminded of the Civil War. The "Gone With the Wind" philosophy that basically said that one Rebel could kill 20 Yankees. I don't think it was sound logic then and I don't think it's any more logical now. Votes and unity start a movement. Because you think you're right may not convince people who think you are way too conservative. You can't win anything if you drive the disenchanted further from their party. Being right is one thing, but being too far right is a recipe for more political set-backs. By your very actions, you are creating more and more enemies in the next election.
• BCSbunk

  Swamp Fox wrote: When you mention re-making the Republican party by revolutionizing them into a more conservative/liberterian group, I'm afraid you will continue to drive away your moderates and certainly the more liberal Republicans and I don't think it will appear very revolutionary. I think it will appear more reactionary. I am reminded of the Civil War. The "Gone With the Wind" philosophy that basically said that one Rebel could kill 20 Yankees. I don't think it was sound logic then and I don't think it's any more logical now. Votes and unity start a movement. Because you think you're right may not convince people who think you are way too conservative. You can't win anything if you drive the disenchanted further from their party. Being right is one thing, but being too far right is a recipe for more political set-backs. By your very actions, you are creating more and more enemies in the next election.

  I think your statement reflects the need of more parties. More and more people are understanding that liberal/conservative is a false dichotomy.
• majorspark

  

  Swamp Fox wrote: When you mention re-making the Republican party by revolutionizing them into a more conservative/liberterian group, I'm afraid you will continue to drive away your moderates and certainly the more liberal Republicans and I don't think it will appear very revolutionary. I think it will appear more reactionary. I am reminded of the Civil War. The "Gone With the Wind" philosophy that basically said that one Rebel could kill 20 Yankees. I don't think it was sound logic then and I don't think it's any more logical now. Votes and unity start a movement. Because you think you're right may not convince people who think you are way too conservative. You can't win anything if you drive the disenchanted further from their party. Being right is one thing, but being too far right is a recipe for more political set-backs. By your very actions, you are creating more and more enemies in the next election.

  Polls indicate that the majority of Americans are conservative. So I would not worry about numbers.
  
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/conservatives-maintain-edge-top-ideological-group.aspx

  Perceptions that there is too much government regulation of business and industry jumped from 38% in September 2008 to 45% in September 2009.
  The percentage of Americans saying they would like to see labor unions have less influence in the country rose from 32% in August 2008 to a record-high 42% in August 2009.
  Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009, also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict -- the traditionally liberal position -- fell from 49% to 44%.)
  The percentage of Americans favoring a decrease in immigration rose from 39% in June/July 2008 to 50% in July 2009.
  The propensity to want the government to "promote traditional values" -- as opposed to "not favor any particular set of values" -- rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009. Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.
  The percentage of Americans who consider themselves "pro-life" on abortion rose from 44% in May 2008 to 51% in May 2009, and remained at a slightly elevated 47% in July 2009.
  Americans' belief that the global warming problem is "exaggerated" in the news rose from 35% in March 2008 to 41% in March 2009.

  As BCSbunk correctly noted the republican party many times portrays itself as a party of limited conservative governance. Yet governs contrary to that ideology. Many times with the aid of those you refer to as liberal/moderate. This turns people like myself away from the party. The republican party is far weaker and loses support. What they may lose in liberal/moderate members they would gain far more principled true conservatives. A limited fiscally responsible federal government, few would be against this. Hell evan BSCbunk, Footwedge, Iggypride00 may evan jump on board.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Here's how I see it, concerning the people in power - mainly DC, but state levels also:
  
  Democrats - concerned mostly with being the people's paycheck and healthcare insurance provider = $$$$$
  
  Republican - concerned mostly with big military and big business = $$$$$
  
  Both parties are BIG money and little common sense (if any at all).
  
  H. ROSS PEROT!!!
• believer

  

  BCSbunk wrote:I think when a party says it is for small government (Republican) it should show it not just say it.

  majorspark wrote:As BCSbunk correctly noted the republican party many times portrays itself as a party of limited conservative governance. Yet governs contrary to that ideology.

  I agree and have said many times how disappointed I am with the blown opportunity the Repubs had in the 90's and early 00's to decrease the size of Big Government.
  

  BCSbunk wrote:We already know the Democrats mantra is big government is good but at least they are honest in their approach.

  Democrat desire to control 1/6 of the private economy (health care) and then lying to us on how they plan to pay for it is hardly being honest in their approach, but I digress.
• ou1980

  [size=large]ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!![/size]
  
  
  
  Just imagine, a republican filling Ted Kennedy's seat? This does not happen folks, and in Massachusetts nonetheless.
• majorspark

  

  ou1980 wrote: [size=large]ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!![/size]
  
  
  
  Just imagine, a republican filling Ted Kennedy's seat? This does not happen folks, and in Massachusetts nonetheless.

  Its not Ted Kennedy's seat.
  
• Ghmothwdwhso

  majorspark wrote:

  ou1980 wrote: [size=large]ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!![/size]
  
  
  
  Just imagine, a republican filling Ted Kennedy's seat? This does not happen folks, and in Massachusetts nonetheless.

  Its not Ted Kennedy's seat.
  

  You meant Dead Kennedy's seat, not Ted. Ted had been dead for years, but no one noticed.
• majorspark

  

  Recent polls have Brown in the lead.
  http://www1.whdh.com/features/articles/hiller/BO133471/
  
  There is a Kennedy on the ballot. He's a libertarian. I wonder how he will factor in. You think there will be any mindless voters thinking he is a member of the kennedy family.
• 2quik4u

  

  
• Apple

  

  Swamp Fox wrote:...Being right is one thing, but being too far right is a recipe for more political set-backs. By your very actions, you are creating more and more enemies in the next election.

  Being left is one thing, but being too far left is a recipe for more political set-backs. By your very actions, you are creating more and more enemies in the next election.
  
  This is precisely the predicament BHO is in right now, this Tuesday in MA... only it is just the start and November 2010 and 2012 are on coarse to be even more of the same.
• believer

  

  Apple wrote:Being left is one thing, but being too far left is a recipe for more political set-backs. By your very actions, you are creating more and more enemies in the next election.
  
  This is precisely the predicament BHO is in right now, this Tuesday in MA... only it is just the start and November 2010 and 2012 are on coarse to be even more of the same.

  We can only hope.
• believer

  

  I hope that when I get home this evening the people of liberal Massachusetts will have sent the Dems a clear message by electing a Repub to "Dead Kennedy's seat".
  
  Blasphemy! Cross your fingers! lol
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Did anyone see Keith Olbermann's comments? Is that guy the biggest douche in the universe or what?
• fish82

  

  LOL....I can only imagine. By 10:00 tonight Ag Boy will be sitting at the desk with a puddle between his legs, and Scott Brown's balls in his mouth. Metaphorically speaking, of course.