New Wave Outpost Forum

Will the GOP claim Teddy's Senate seat? Right now the Dems are scared shitless that it might happen. How bad is it when the President has to come and campaign for a seat formerly held by a Kennedy. Unfortunately I think the Dems will squeak it out though.

It looks promising!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... day-early/

No, this is silly. If Brown defeats Coakley, the Democrats will have exactly the same number of Senate seats that they had this time last year. What they won't be able to do, however, is make any amendments and final changes to the current Senate health care bill -- they'll have to send the current version to the White House as is (or use the reconciliation process), because they won't have the votes to pass a filibuster-proof bill of changes.

The Democrats will relinquish their super-majority (not like they were able to use it effectively anyway because dems don't have strict party discipline), which means the Senate will be effectively blocked by a GOP filibuster on [b]all[/b] bills except those the GOP wants to pass (e.g. military spending and tax cuts). So that's bad news for anything else in Obama's agenda (e.g., cap and trade, financial reform). As far as I'm concerned, I'll at least be delighted that the fucktard corporate democrats, who held enormous power for their swing-vote and therefore drew ridiculous concessions, will be returned to their formerly puny status.

And of course the GOP will actually have to "co-own" legislation from that point, and can no longer claim to be shut out of anything that passes (since, passing anything at all will require their votes), and they will henceforth be partly culpable for obstructionism.

One of the better comments I've read about this:

"On the bright side, we'll be able to generate loads of clean energy by hooking a generator up to Ted Kennedy as he spins in his grave."

I am anxiously awaiting to see if Keith Olbermann's head will explode on air when he has to say "Senator elect Brown".

<center>
<a href="http://s64.photobucket.com/albums/h199/dancinnberlin/?action=view¤t=explodinghead.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h199/dancinnberlin/explodinghead.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>


</center>

Martha Chokely. Yes I worked on that one for hours.[:)]

It is a huge upset for the Democrats. Not that their majority in the Senate did anything. But for Massachusetts to lose Ted Kennedy and elect this guy is something.

Now Massachusetts is a proud owner of a Senator who voted against a bill to fund help for 9-11 rescue workers at ground zero when he was a State Rep. But at the same time he did vote to push a bill to subsidize a golf course. [:p]

Yes, the voter sentiment was pretty odd -- in exit polls and surveys, most of the voters responded that they support Obama / rate his effectiveness favorably. Quite a few respondents remarked that they want Brown to go to Washington to [i]control spending in Massachusetts[/i], which bizarrely is the opposite of what any senator or rep does for its state in Washington. In any case, Coakley was definitely the wrong candidate for that race.

One other oddity-- Brown has also been stumping about killing the health care bill, which is almost an exact mirror (well, the federal one is a bit better) of the state health care plan they have in Mass. Which Brown strongly supports!

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>Yes, the voter sentiment was pretty odd -- in exit polls and surveys, most of the voters responded that they support Obama / rate his effectiveness favorably. Quite a few respondents remarked that they want Brown to go to Washington to [i]control spending in Massachusetts[/i], which bizarrely is the opposite of what any senator or rep does for its state in Washington. In any case, Coakley was definitely the wrong candidate for that race.

One other oddity-- Brown has also been stumping about killing the health care bill, which is almost an exact mirror (well, the federal one is a bit better) of the state health care plan they have in Mass. Which Brown strongly supports!
[/quote]

Another issue I keep reading about is that Coakley hardly did any campaigning, wrongly assuming that her win was a given.

A good analysis of the post-election circular firing squad:

<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/20/left/index.html" target="_new">Glenn Greenwald: Blame the all-powerful left!</a>
<blockquote>I want to address two equally moronic themes emerging over the last couple of days which seek to blame the omnipotent, dominant, super-human "Left" for the Democrats' woes -- one coming from right-wing Democrats and the other from hard-core Obama loyalists...
The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials -- and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems -- has been captive "to the Left" is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it. For better or worse, the Democratic strategy has long been and still is to steer clear of their leftist base and instead govern as "pragmatists" and centrists -- which means keeping the permanent Washington factions pleased. That strategy may or not be politically shrewd, but it is just a fact that the dreaded "Left" has gotten very little of what it wanted the entire year. Is there anyone who actually believes that "The Left" is in control of anything, let alone the Democratic Party?</blockquote>[b]Update II[/b] at the bottom is especially worth reading:
<blockquote>Noting that even reasonable conservatives like Stephen Bainbridge are saying things like: "Obama and the Congressional Democrats (especially in the House) governed for the last year as though the median voter is a Daily Kos (liberal activist site) fan," <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-gulf.html" target="_new2">Andrew Sullivan</a> writes:
<blockquote>"...This must come as some surprise to most Daily Kos fans. But if one had traveled to Mars and back this past year and read this statement, what would you assume had happened? I would assume that the banks had been nationalized, the stimulus was twice as large, that single-payer health care had been pushed through on narrow majority votes, that card-check had passed, that an immigration amnesty had been legislated, that prosecutions of Bush and Cheney for war crimes would be underway, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be commencing, that no troops would be left in Iraq, that Larry Tribe was on the Supreme Court, that DADT (don't-ask-don't tell) and DOMA (defense of marriage act) would be repealed, and so on."</blockquote>Exactly. Of course, none of those things has happened, precisely because the Democrats under Obama (and before) have been doing everything except "governing from the Left." But our political discourse, as usual, is so suffuse with blinding stupidity that this clichéd falsehood -- Democrats have been beholden to the Left -- will take root as Unchallengeable Truth and shape what happens next. That's already happening.</blockquote>

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>A good analysis of the post-election circular firing squad:

<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/20/left/index.html" target="_new">Glenn Greenwald: Blame the all-powerful left!</a>
<blockquote>I want to address two equally moronic themes emerging over the last couple of days which seek to blame the omnipotent, dominant, super-human "Left" for the Democrats' woes -- one coming from right-wing Democrats and the other from hard-core Obama loyalists...
The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials -- and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems -- has been captive "to the Left" is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it. For better or worse, the Democratic strategy has long been and still is to steer clear of their leftist base and instead govern as "pragmatists" and centrists -- which means keeping the permanent Washington factions pleased. That strategy may or not be politically shrewd, but it is just a fact that the dreaded "Left" has gotten very little of what it wanted the entire year. Is there anyone who actually believes that "The Left" is in control of anything, let alone the Democratic Party?</blockquote>[b]Update II[/b] at the bottom is especially worth reading:
<blockquote>Noting that even reasonable conservatives like Stephen Bainbridge are saying things like: "Obama and the Congressional Democrats (especially in the House) governed for the last year as though the median voter is a Daily Kos (liberal activist site) fan," <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-gulf.html" target="_new2">Andrew Sullivan</a> writes:
<blockquote>"...This must come as some surprise to most Daily Kos fans. But if one had traveled to Mars and back this past year and read this statement, what would you assume had happened? I would assume that the banks had been nationalized, the stimulus was twice as large, that single-payer health care had been pushed through on narrow majority votes, that card-check had passed, that an immigration amnesty had been legislated, that prosecutions of Bush and Cheney for war crimes would be underway, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be commencing, that no troops would be left in Iraq, that Larry Tribe was on the Supreme Court, that DADT (don't-ask-don't tell) and DOMA (defense of marriage act) would be repealed, and so on."</blockquote>Exactly. Of course, none of those things has happened, precisely because the Democrats under Obama (and before) have been doing everything except "governing from the Left." But our political discourse, as usual, is so suffuse with blinding stupidity that this clichéd falsehood -- Democrats have been beholden to the Left -- will take root as Unchallengeable Truth and shape what happens next. That's already happening.</blockquote>
[/quote]



Phil Ochs would agree with the above statements and he wrote a song along those lines many years ago. There are cover versions floating around on YouTube but everyone tried to update the lyrics. That's like shitting on a Picasso. Here are the original:

LOVE ME I'M A LIBERAL


I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal