CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26112
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:12 pm
 


Ted Kennedy died.

38 months ago he took his Massachusetts seat with 69% of the vote. He held that seat for 47 years, and took it over from his brother John. The district is often referred to as "the Kennedy seat". Ted Kennedy died, but the title remained.

After Kennedy's death the Democrats began the tedious process of filling "the Kennedy Seat". They chose Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. That was December 8. Christmas was coming. Martha, secure in "the Kennedy seat", ignored any possible threat of a Republican challenge in the upcoming vote which would decide which party holds the seat. The incidental threat of a Republican move on "the Kennedy Seat" just didn't figure. The polls showed they weren't even on the radar. Martha set about decking her halls, and enjoying her Christmas vacation. Campaign? What's that? Why bother? Massachusetts is mine, she thought.

Enter Scott Brown. Brown was Martha's Republican challenger. Not even the Republican party thought he had a snowball's chance of making a dint with the electorate. The Republican deciders gave Brown little if any support. Nevertheless Brown did not share their pessimism. He jumped in his black pickup truck, and started driving around the district shaking hands. As Martha lay comfortably on her divan sipping toddies, Brown stood, bundled up in his winter coat outside Fenway park where an outdoors hockey game was taking place, shaking hands.

Brown began to make ripples. Fantasy musings began to pop up on right wing blogs. What if Scott Brown somehow did the impossible, and challenged Coakley for "the Kennedy Seat". He wouldn't have to win. He'd just have to be a threat. Maybe he could somehow get close enough to make the Democrats take notice of a growing threat of change in voter opinion. If this happened maybe, just maybe Democrats would think twice about angering the populace in anticipation of the 2010 mid-term elections in November. Maybe they might even hesitate on voting in this increasingly unpopular healthcare bill. It was a pleasant imagining for them, but not even for them was it credible at that point. It was unicorns and pixie dust.

Then the Massachusetts candidate's debate happened. The moderator asked Brown a question concerning how he could possibly consider voting against healthcare, sitting in the "the Kennedy's seat". Brown replied "It's not the Kennedy's seat. It's the People's Seat", and that was it - the rallying cry. Things changed rapidly after that.

First of all there were Martha's gaffes. Finally realizing she was in an actual election race, she dashed madly into action, and made mistake after mistake.

* On Brown at Fenway, she said, "“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?". This was seen as an implied diss of the beloved Fenway, and the people who held it as an icon of their culture.

* Curt Schilling, the legendary pitcher for the Boston Red Sox responded, ""There are just so many things wrong with that statement...Her elitism and arrogance ... the apparent feeling that the seat belongs to her just by virtue of her party...Has she forgotten who she's talking to? What state she's wanting to represent in the Senate?". Martha's reply to that was "Schilling's a Yankees fan". Let's understate that statement from Martha, and just call it absurd.

* Looking for a quick fix of campaign cash Martha jumped on a plane, zipped quietly down to Washington, and appeared, hat in hand, before big pharmacare and other lobbyists begging bucks. Her presence was discovered by journalists. One inquired information of her concerning another of her more ludicrous statements. She claimed there were no terrorists in Afghanistan. Martha turned regally away, and asked the other peon reporters if they had any other questions.

* It didn't end there though. The reporter followed Martha out the door, and asked a second question. At that point a large, burly campaign manager, recently appointed by Democrat headquarters, appeared before the reporter, and pushed him over a fence. (It's on YouTube). Attorney General, Coakley claimed she did not see the assault. However there's a clear picture of her watching the incident happen. The pic quickly made the internet rounds.

* Then there was the Catholic diss. Martha suggested Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, where their pro-choice objections might be challenged.

* On returning from Washington, her pockets stuffed with Lobbyist cash, Martha finally charged in battle. She began to campaign. Apparently the way a Martha Coakley campaign is run, is you place yourself as far away as possible from the proles on the street, and feed peon ad executives cash to attack your opposition. The attack ads have not been popular. People don't like them. There has been a backlash.

What has happened as a result of all this is there has been shift in the polls. Martha's victory is no longer a given. Even her own internal poll had Scott Brown ahead by 2 yesterday. Today they appear to have magically evened out. However even "even" is not good.

If Scott Brown somehow miraculously pulls off one of the political upsets of the century on Tuesday it changes the whole political environment in America. He would hold what may be the deciding vote on the healthcare bill. Beyond that though, Democrats in general would have to think twice about supporting the unpopular policies of the Obama regime, in general. What was just a clue, becomes a hammer over the head, telling those Democrats holding seats they're about to lose their jobs in November.

I told you all that, and it wasn't really necessary. I could have just shown you this...



Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:33 pm
 


If Brown wins, Coakley has nobody to blame but herself. There are some stupid comments "Ted Kennedy's seat" but woo, some of the stupid statements after that were astounding.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26112
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:32 pm
 


Obama's efforts to travel to influence opinion have tended to fail thus far - Chicago Olympic bid, Copenhagen, New York elections.

He preferred not to risk another failure with a trip to Massachusetts. However so much is riding on this particular election he had to change his mind at the last minute, and take the chance of stumping for Coakley.

He got heckled there today...bad...



Doesn't matter much. Obama couldn't even fill the hall anyway.



Standing room only at the Brown rally across town though.

Image


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:40 pm
 


[popcorn]

we'll be watching :)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31737
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:16 pm
 


This is not as huge an election as it seems. Even if Brown wins, he only holds the seat for two years as it returns to it's regular election schedule in 2012. By that time the Massacrewcut Democrats should have a candidate that isn't a total putz lined up by then and reclaim the seat.

This won't be a pro-Brown vote or an anti-Obama one (despite all the premature gloating of some). It's a purely anti-Coakley vote and the voters are reacting against one of the most horrible choices the DNC has ever shoved down their throats.

And if Brown wins, it won't be a pro-Teabagger victory either. There's none of the silly Palinesque nihilist populist nonsense being put on the table here. That garbage might work for the 'real Americans' in places like Dixie but in New England that entire line of thought is deader than dead.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:34 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
And if Brown wins, it won't be a pro-Teabagger victory either.


I never understood why being a "Teabagger" is such an insult. I'd rather teabag then be teabagged. Such is life of a gamer, though.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31737
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:42 pm
 


Teabagger = nihilist. Offers nothing of substance but incohate and mindless rage. Classic mob with pitchforks and torches badly disguised as so-called revolutionaries, patriots, common folk, and the only "real Americans" in the entire country. In other words, a total fraud manufactured by FOX News.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:59 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
Teabagger = nihilist. Offers nothing of substance but incohate and mindless rage. Classic mob with pitchforks and torches badly disguised as so-called revolutionaries, patriots, common folk, and the only "real Americans" in the entire country. In other words, a total fraud manufactured by FOX News.


Hmm, I must be seeing radically different protests. I still haven't seen the whole "mob with pitchforks and torches" yet. You said yourself, they're the ones with the guns and the cause (and probably a substantial part of the military), and yet, these protests are more organized and less violent than the various "protests" turned riots I remember from the late 90s and the 00s.

I'll subjectively state that these protests are less crowded of "teabaggery" than the whole anti-Bush, anti-globalization, anti-war protests that I grew up witnessing, and certainly not to the level of anti-Vietnam protests. Is there a lot of rhetoric? Of course, I'm sure there are a lot of catchphrases and chants and slogans too. Are the protests manufactured? Probably, like how leftist protests are organized on school campuses.

I haven't seen any real evidence that these protests are significantly worse than past protests, outside of the fact that there is a conservative slant.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 3646
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:01 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
This is not as huge an election as it seems. Even if Brown wins, he only holds the seat for two years as it returns to it's regular election schedule in 2012. By that time the Massacrewcut Democrats should have a candidate that isn't a total putz lined up by then and reclaim the seat.

This won't be a pro-Brown vote or an anti-Obama one (despite all the premature gloating of some). It's a purely anti-Coakley vote and the voters are reacting against one of the most horrible choices the DNC has ever shoved down their throats.

And if Brown wins, it won't be a pro-Teabagger victory either. There's none of the silly Palinesque nihilist populist nonsense being put on the table here. That garbage might work for the 'real Americans' in places like Dixie but in New England that entire line of thought is deader than dead.


Attachments:
3461929_6575019.jpg
3461929_6575019.jpg [ 6.08 KiB | Viewed 433 times ]
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 3646
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:08 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
Teabagger = nihilist. a total fraud manufactured by FOX News.

MSNBC Ed Schultz: I'd cheat to keep Brown from winning TALK ABOUT FRAUD



Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 31737
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:10 pm
 


commanderkai commanderkai:
Hmm, I must be seeing radically different protests. I still haven't seen the whole "mob with pitchforks and torches" yet. You said yourself, they're the ones with the guns and the cause (and probably a substantial part of the military), and yet, these protests are more organized and less violent than the various "protests" turned riots I remember from the late 90s and the 00s.

I'll subjectively state that these protests are less crowded of "teabaggery" than the whole anti-Bush, anti-globalization, anti-war protests that I grew up witnessing, and certainly not to the level of anti-Vietnam protests. Is there a lot of rhetoric? Of course, I'm sure there are a lot of catchphrases and chants and slogans too. Are the protests manufactured? Probably, like how leftist protests are organized on school campuses.

I haven't seen any real evidence that these protests are significantly worse than past protests, outside of the fact that there is a conservative slant.



What substantive alternative policies has the TeaParty movement put forth, besides the usual flimsy "more tax cuts" sloagneering that's lacking in any sort of specifics? "Needs Moar War!" is not a policy, it's a pathology. This is why so many people see this entire radical populist wave as nothing more than a middle-class white America temper tantrum. Offer a rational and coherent alternative. If you can't then don't expect to be taken seriously.

Oppose-oppose-oppose, slander-slander-slander, hate-hate-hate is the definition of political nihilism. Even the dolts in the NDP aren't this reflexively clockwork when they try to take the Conservatives to task.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7835
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:42 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
What substantive alternative policies has the TeaParty movement put forth, besides the usual flimsy "more tax cuts" sloagneering that's lacking in any sort of specifics? "Needs Moar War!" is not a policy, it's a pathology.


The Tea Party movement is a organized protest movement, not a real political party one, at least not in my interpretation. I didn't expect anything else from the protests of past years and generations. "No more war!" isn't a public policy platform either, and yet has been a staple of anti-war movements since the beginning. Same goes with anti-globalization protests. There wasn't exactly an intellectual counter for their opinions against globalization.

Yes, I'm sure you'll bring forth the whole "Tea Party" convention, but honestly, I don't think most people really expect a third party to be formed in the United States. The United States has been using the Two-Party system since...well since the beginning, for the most part. The Republican Party was formed and absorbed the Whigs. After a few years of a "Tea Party" existing...if it ever truly exists, which it won't, it'll be reabsorbed into the Republican Party. Such is life of US Politics.

$1:
This is why so many people see this entire radical populist wave as nothing more than a middle-class white America temper tantrum. Offer a rational and coherent alternative. If you can't then don't expect to be taken seriously.


Well, I don't see a racial component into this. Maybe I'm just 20 and just don't care about it, but the fact the majority of the United States, and the middle class are white, you would expect a major protest force would be white as well. A majority of anti-globalization were white, upper-middle class university students. The fact that they're white doesn't really matter.

$1:
Oppose-oppose-oppose, slander-slander-slander, hate-hate-hate is the definition of political nihilism. Even the dolts in the NDP aren't this reflexively clockwork when they try to take the Conservatives to task.


They have to be reelected. Of course they aren't going to be stupid. An elected official has to keep their opinions close to their vest, unless it creates a scandal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of protests, especially when they turned into riots, like we've seen in the Seattle WTO riots (and I'm sure there were arrests and property damage during the anti-war protest). I don't expect protests to be made out of the best and brightest...or hell, even the busy (They're working) and certainly there is elements of both "manufactured" dissent (because people get their signs printed off from somewhere, let alone protest permits) and group-think (how else can you make many people chant the same phrase over and over).

There's nothing unique about these various protests, outside of it being a right-leaning movement that's highly organized. That's the uniqueness of it. It'd be an interesting political study. But it's certainly not violent, dangerous, or threatening as some people, like yourself, make them out to be. Heck, a lot of the imagery is basically taken from anti-war movements of the past decade and from the 1960s.

You might not like their politics, their views, or heck, the fact that they're protesting. That's fine. But rhetoric won't solve anything.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:27 am
 


Relax, your precious right-wing corporatist state will be in friendly hands regardless. Barack Obama raised $2.1 million from drug companies in 2008. That's about equal to what John McCain raised plus what George Bush raised in both of his elections. It's the most by far any candidate has raised from the drug industry.


One week before the election Coakley flew to be with a group of corporate lobbyists:

"With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night...

Of the 22 names on the host committee--meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley--17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there's also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.

All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley's host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Coakley-in-trouble-Pharma-and-HMO-lobbyists-to-the-rescue-81067542.html


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 53
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:36 am
 


Why does any of this matter to Canada?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26112
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:35 pm
 


DundasBill DundasBill:
Why does any of this matter to Canada?


Jeez...I wish people would learn to look up, and see what section of the board they're posting in. It's called "US Politics".

Unless, of course you're asking why a board called Canada Kicks Ass would want a section on US Politics. I'd imagine you'd want to ask the administrator that one, but my best guess would be it's because what happens in America affects Canada.

For example, with this one, if Brown is elected he will hold what could be the deciding vote in the US Senate. Brown is a fiscal conservative. Coakley favors big government policies. The economic policies in America affect Canada.

In case anybody's interested in the polls in advance of tomorrow's important election the chances of Brown pulling off an upset look increasingly good across polls.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/what_to_b ... ssachu.php

And this is interesting... Have you ever heard of Intrade.com? It's this website where you can buy stocks (or make bets, would maybe be more accurate) on issues of the day. Apparently they're pretty good at picking winners of political campaigns. The last few days they've gone strongly for Brown.

http://www.intrade.com/?request_operati ... ePage=true


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.