[Retitled] BROWN WINS!! Upset in Massachusetts!

[JackC]

When was it that liberals became such haters?

That's just Olbermann doing his standard shtick. He's cable's version of Hannity of the Left. It's all about ratings.

I agree he sounds borderline about to blow a gasket. When you are reduced to attacking the people of Massachusetts for (possibly) electing Brown, it's time to take a step back!

[keaggy220]

When was it that liberals became such haters?

That's just Olbermann doing his standard shtick. He's cable's version of Hannity of the Left. It's all about ratings.

I agree he sounds borderline about to blow a gasket. When you are reduced to attacking the people of Massachusetts for (possibly) electing Brown, it's time to take a step back!

I don't listen to Hannity often, but I've never heard him go off the deep-end like Olbermann seemingly does with some regularity.

It's not just Olbermann either. Take a look at comment sections of blogs and see the hate from the left. My experience is that the hate from the left has taken a dramatic turn for the worse over the last 5 or 10 years.

[Corlyss_D]

It's not just Olbermann either. Take a look at comment sections of blogs and see the hate from the left. My experience is that the hate from the left has taken a dramatic turn for the worse over the last 5 or 10 years.

Poor history education, no civics beyond the Zinn/Chomsky variety: America=evil oppressors, courtesy of the ed schools for which Bill Ayers designs the curricula. The Left's motives are always unimpeachable because they love Man and care so much for the down trodden of the world.

If you believe that you can end war, poverty, and racism forever, what crime will you not commit, what lie will you not tell? That's why progressives have committed such horrendous atrocities and told such big lies in the 20th & 21st centuries.

Leftists and Democrats and liberals regard politics as war conducted by other means. Republicans regard politics as a management problem.

- David Horowitz, Oct 2007

Ideas matter. A society that does not have confidence in its own history, its ancestry, and especially its exceptionalism, and which begins to doubt itself and to lose its freedom of expression, will see a much more concrete reality follow, a reality that history suggests is much more dangerous.

Once one adopts a cosmic view of the brotherhood of man or the egalitarianism of the individual, it provides all sorts of advantages to the person that holds those views. Their motives are never questioned. The authoritarian on the left is not subject to the baggage because, as we all know, their motives are unimpeachable.

Victor Davis Hanson 2008 address.

[karlhenning]

A society that does not have confidence in its own history, its ancestry, and especially its exceptionalism . . . .

Can someone explain to me briefly what exceptionalism is? I certainly cannot have confidence in the US's exceptionalism, if I do not know what it is.

Thanks!

Cheers,
~Karl

[Corlyss_D]

A society that does not have confidence in its own history, its ancestry, and especially its exceptionalism . . . .

Can someone explain to me briefly what exceptionalism is? I certainly cannot have confidence in the US's exceptionalism, if I do not know what it is.

Thanks!

Cheers,
~Karl

Setting aside "American" for a second, it's basically the view that a nation is unique and represents something characteristic to it and it alone. This is the kind of idea that used to be taught in schools everywhere about any nation, England, Germany, France, Italy, as a way of building reverence for the nation among its citizens. It's basically nationalism. It didn't used to be unique in the world to Americans. However, after the recent unpleasantness in Europe for the first half of the 20th century, a very influential statesman who helped to found the precursors of the EU persuaded a great many people in government that nationalism and pride in country was the cause of the recent wars. The European politicians began to eliminate forms of competitiveness among the nations cooperating in the economic spheres. Part of that program was installing systematic programs in their states to stamp out to the maximum degree possible any such feelings of specialness among the citizens, the sense that one was inherently better than another, because they all needed each other and needed to emphasize commonalities rather than differences.

There's a thumbnail on it at wiki under Exceptionalism, but the article on American Exceptionalism is flagged all over the place for controversial statements, so I won't refer you to it.

Here's a link to a conservative article on American Exceptionalism to get an idea of what the term means to us. http://www.american.com/archive/2008/ap ... ptionalism

Here's a link to what is probably the plain vanilla Left view of American Exceptionalism. I confess I didn't read it because I think they are so eager to make the US just one nation among many in favor of international collectives that it doesn't appreciate why American uniqueness is an international capital asset, not a disadvantage. http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book ... 0300125702

[Corlyss_D]

Well, I'm 10 minutes into Special Report, which airs at 6pm est, and Cameron mentioned in passing that the Coakley people held a news conference to allege ballot box stuffing by the Brown forces. This is not a good sign when the projected loser pre-emptively alleges ballot box stuffing, even before the polls close. The weather was terrible but poll watchers say the traffic at the polling places was pretty steady all day long.

[Brendan]

perhaps that which made America exceptional has been discarded.

What can be called ‘integrated decision-making’ was also a recurring feature of American life from the earliest days until the late twentieth century. By this expression is meant that the same group of people would be involved in both planning and execution, which therefore constituted a continuum; that the possibility for error was minimized by the careful study of the mistakes and successes of the pioneers in the field; that ‘pilot’ exercises were undertaken where practicable; that the implications of any proposal were worked out in detail before a decision was taken to proceed or not; that provision was made against the contingency that some of the original assumptions might be incorrect; and that, finally, while decision-making was often painfully slow, execution could be swift. Integrated decision–making arose out of the relatively unstratified, ‘hands-on’ nature of Puritan society, with its emphasis on direct, personal responsibility.

The contrasting, traditional European (which here includes British) procedure can be called “split-level decision-making”; this means that planning and execution are functions reserved for different groups of people, often from distinct social classes; that a decision to proceed will be made ‘in principle’ before its implications have been worked out in detail; that little or no provision is made for contingencies; that, while decision-making can be swift, execution is likely to be deadly slow; and that the possibility of error is maximized. If there was one central, over-riding ‘secret’ that accounted for the success of American business and society in general from 1630 until the 1960s, it is in the way in which decisions were made and put into effect.
Hopper, Kenneth and William – The Puritan Gift – Reclaiming the American Dream Amidst Global Financial Chaos [Tauris, 2007, 2009 p. 25-26]

All hope is not yet lost, but both sides of politics, as well as business, the academy and most other institutions of society have adopted the neo-Taylorist Cult of the (so-called) Expert. Rather than relying on the experience and judgement of real people in the field who accumulate knowledge over time, we are all told what to do and think by the "Experts" who have a certificate.

We don't get to vote on the things that really effect our lives most deeply. If American business and society in general doesn't regrow some common old-fashioned American sense the future looks depressing indeed for us all.

[ch1525]

Coakley conceded!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Off to pop open some champagne now!)

[keaggy220]

HARBINGER!!!!!!!!

[Corlyss_D]

NOW! Already! OMG! This is huge. No wonder Pelosi and Hoyer and Durben were being so coy.

[Corlyss_D]

A Politico source told Hume tonight that the White House is planning to double down on its entire agenda in response to Brown's win.

There's an idiot strategist in the WH, variously attributed to be Rahmbo or Axelrod, who is convinced that the reason the Dems were kicked out of power in 1994 was because they didn't accomplish anything with their majorities, not because the center of the country rebelled against the agenda. They plan to press on with health care, cap-and-trade, financial reform which basically punishes the bankers, indifferent to the consequences for unemployment, second massive "stimulus" boondoggle for their campaign footsoldiers, blaming Bush and Wall Street for the economy to fire up class warfare. They have stated they are confident the voters will forget about everything else if the administration and the Congress deliver on those issues.

This will be very interesting. I may live to see my dream about the extinction of the Boomer-dominated, Soros-owned Democratic party come true. Could I be so lucky?

[Daisy]

It almost inconceivable that a Republican could win this election.

Hey, Jack...!


Guess who'se gonna win?

I apologize for gloating. That wasn 't very nice of me.

[rwetmore]

A Politico source told Hume tonight that the White House is planning to double down on its entire agenda in response to Brown's win.

There's an idiot strategist in the WH, variously attributed to be Rahmbo or Axelrod, who is convinced that the reason the Dems were kicked out of power in 1994 was because they didn't accomplish anything with their majorities, not because the center of the country rebelled against the agenda. They plan to press on with health care, cap-and-trade, financial reform which basically punishes the bankers, indifferent to the consequences for unemployment, blaming Bush and Wall Street for the economy to fire up class warfare. They have stated they are confident the voters will forget about everything else if the administration and the Congress deliver on those issues.

This is exactly what I'd expect them to do. Morris predicted this well over a year ago. For them to do anything else would be totally out of character and totally inconsistent with everything they've done or tried to do so far.

This will be very interesting. I may live to see my dream about the extinction of the Boomer-dominated, Soros-owned Democratic party come true. Could I be so lucky?

You may. If they push this healthcare thing through, look for the Republicans to take back both houses of congress with huge wins (bigger than '94).

[keaggy220]

Senator Webb of Virginia crumbles!!!

As a Virginian I can tell you he is hearing the message through a bullhorn to the ear!!!


Senator Jim Webb puts out a statement that puts the notion of a quick Senate vote out of reach and pretty much makes a certification fight moot:

"In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."

And good luck getting Lieberman to vote for cloture this week anyway.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... lan_C.html

[Chalkperson]

I don't follow these things, but, are you seriously telling me that Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican...

[keaggy220]

WSJ on the how the dems support among independents has completely collapsed in the last three elections. Obama ran as a centrist and he's governed as a lunatic.

Independent Voters Abandon Democrats
To Win Back Vital Bloc, Party Plans to Retool Midterm-Election Message to Focus on Economy and Play Down Health Care
By PETER WALLSTEN

Democrats' loss in Tuesday's race for a Massachusetts Senate seat is a stark illustration of their collapsing support from independent voters, a phenomenon that's prompting party leaders to revamp their playbook for this year's midterm elections.

Independent voters—typically centrist, white and working-class—backed President Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008. But Massachusetts is now the third Obama-won state in the past three months where independents have swung decisively Republican.

Polls in the days leading up to the vote suggested the lead for Republican Scott Brown came about largely because of his advantage among independents over Democrat Martha Coakley.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that Mr. Obama's job-approval rating among independents nationwide is 41%. That's a 12-point drop from his performance on Election Day in 2008, when he won 52% of independents, and a near-20-point decline among that group from the heights of his popularity soon after taking office.

"The independents are the fulcrum of the American electorate," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the Journal survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "Simply put, for the Democrats and Barack Obama, the arrows have been pointing down."

In Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans won governorships in November by winning independents by two-to-one margins. In all three states, polls showed that independents were anxious about the economy and the rising jobless rate, with health-care a less important issue.

Democratic strategists worry the numbers paint a gloomy picture for the party in states with competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial races this year where independent voters will hold sway, including Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio. Those states carry added weight for the White House because they will be battlegrounds for Mr. Obama's re-election.

Massachusetts could be problematic again in November when Gov. Deval Patrick is up for re-election amid dropping approval ratings. If the tide is not stemmed, unexpected blue-state contests could erupt for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland.

"This is a strong wake-up call for Democrats across the country," said Andrew Whalen, executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party.

Polls show independent voters aren't enamored of the GOP either, and could be lured back to the Democrats again if the economy improves. Only about one-fourth of independents feel positively toward either party, according to the survey.

Democratic campaigns across the country began rethinking their 2010 playbooks as Ms. Coakley slid in the polls. Strategists say they plan to play down health care as an election-year topic and shift to a populist message taking Wall Street to task for causing the country's economic woes. Democrats also hope to blame Republicans for the economy, and align GOP candidates with their unpopular national leadership.

"The message needs to be on jobs, fiscal responsibility, and reminding people that if you turn back the clock, you're going to get the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), chairman of the Democrats' House campaign committee. "You can talk about health care in that context, but clearly not leading with health care."

Celinda Lake, Ms. Coakley's pollster, said angry voters want someone to blame for lousy economic conditions and political infighting in Washington. "Unless we ascribe blame to someone, they're going to blame us."

In the Massachusetts race, Ms. Coakley sought to close the gap with Mr. Brown by seizing on his opposition to the administration's new bank tax to paint him as a party-line Republican. The effectiveness of such an approach is unclear.

"The voters don't want a boogeyman, they want less spending," said Nick Ayers, director of the Republican Governors Association.

Ms. Coakley's supporters in Massachusetts said the bad economy made the landscape treacherous for Democrats. They credited Mr. Brown with successfully tapping into anxiety over employment and government spending.

"There are a lot of people who've lost their jobs, even some laid-off Teamsters and they're frustrated," said Steve Sullivan, government-affairs liaison for Teamsters Local 25 in Boston.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 04680.html

[living_stradivarius]

I don't follow these things, but, are you seriously telling me that Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican...

Yep, legacy has often trumped economics , but when legacy steps aside...

[keaggy220]

I don't follow these things, but, are you seriously telling me that Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican...

Now try to tell me there's no God.

[Corlyss_D]

I don't follow these things, but, are you seriously telling me that Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican...

YES!

[Corlyss_D]

Stats will come out in more detail tomorrow but here's some prelims:

Mass. votes cast in presidential election 2008: 3Mil

Mass. margin of victory for Obama: 26 pts.

Votes cast in Coakely-Brown: 2 Mil

Brown margin of victory so far: 100,000

Boston couldn't turn out the votes for Coakely.

[Daisy]

I don't follow these things, but, are you seriously telling me that Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican...

Yo Mama!

[Corlyss_D]

I was struck by Luntz' focus group's responses and how there was an underlying theme of anger and frustration with Obama's policies. Many were less focused on health care as opposed to everything that's been happening all year.

I was struck too by one guy leaving a polling station with his wife who said they were planning to vote for Coakley until the Kennedy family got involved. I had heard there was some annoyance about the perception that the Kennedys ran everything in Mass., but I didn't take it seriously. Could we be seeing an end to that bit of faux royalty as well?

[keaggy220]

I don't follow these things, but, are you seriously telling me that Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican...

YES!

And the people of Massachusetts said, "GIVE ME LIBERTY!!"

[ch1525]

I'm anxiously awaiting the liberal response to tonight's events from Jbuck or RebLem! I hope they are alright and didn't do anything rash!!!

[SaulChanukah]

Great win for Brown!

[Corlyss_D]

I'm anxiously awaiting the liberal response to tonight's events from Jbuck or RebLem! I hope they are alright and didn't do anything rash!!!

They will be encouraged by Richard Trumka, the WH surrogate first to fire a salvo across the bow of the public fed up with this administrations radical left agenda. Just a Morris predicted, Trumka waves the bloody shirt of Congressional failure to pass anything, claiming the Mass vote was a clear mandate from the people to pass Obama's agenda. Hemlock, anyone?

[Corlyss_D]

Chalkie,

How did you find out about the Brown win since you don't watch TV?

[Corlyss_D]

From Batchelor:

Independents 68 to 27 for Brown.

Late news on Election Day eve in Massachusetts that a Martha Coakley event at a local high school was so poorly attended that aides drew curtains to partition off the empty part of the space. Coakley has never recovered from the Curt Schilling brain freeze. The Secretary of State projects a turnout of as much as 2.2 million of the 4 million total. Spoke John Nichols, Nation, on Monday 18, who pointed his remarks at the White Hosue for failure to advance a progressive message, and he regarded the POTUS remarks on Sunday afternoon for Coakley, in which POTUS used the word "progressive," as a one-off, a show-boat, not typical of a cautious administration. (Does POTUS know what was wrong with the Schilling remark?) Nichols calls for Tim Geithner's head, and perhaps also Axelrod's, and perhaps also a cleaning house after the Coakley fiasco. (Is Geithner a Yankee fan?) There will be partisan blood. Will POTUS fight after the defeat? Yep. Is he welcome at Fenway? Nope. Does Scott Brown get a cup of coffee boom to the Republican ticket in 2012? Yep.

[Corlyss_D]

Why There Won't Be Exit Polls in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Senate race was a complete snoozer until January 5, when pollster Scott Rasmussen released a survey showing Republican Scott Brown trailing Democrat Martha Coakley by only nine points. That surprised many, but still wasn't a true wake-up call that the race would be a barnburner. As late as January 10, the Boston Globe carried a headline trumpeting a poll showing Ms. Coakley with a 15-point lead. Mr. Brown's surge was so sudden that many of the usual accoutrements of closely-contested elections are missing in the Bay State.

One is exit polls. There will be none tonight from Massachusetts, disappointing journalists and political scientists alike. As Mike Allen of Politico.com reports, the consortium of news outlets that normally organizes such surveys didn't bother when the race was expected to be a blowout and now "wasn't confident a reliable system could be built so fast."

Another casualty of the expectation that the race would be a cakewalk for the Democrat will be an absence of absentee ballot fraud, the preferred method of putting an illegal thumb on the scale in a close race. Applications for absentee ballots had to be submitted by last Friday, providing little opportunity for those with ill intent to organize such an effort once they realized the race had tightened up.

That doesn't mean voters aren't suspicious of electoral fraud in a machine state like Massachusetts. Public Policy Polling, a firm with Democratic connections, included a question over the weekend about the infamous left-wing voter registration group ACORN, which has been linked to fraudulent activities in many states and several of whose members have been sent to jail.

When asked whether "ACORN will try to steal the election for Martha Coakley," a surprising 25% of those surveyed in Massachusetts said "yes." A total of 38% said "no," and another 37% weren't sure. Lest you think concern about ACORN was limited to Republicans, one out of six Democrats thought ACORN would attempt electoral hanky-panky. One out of four African-Americans* expressed the same concern, along with the same number of voters who called themselves moderates.

Both parties have concerns about vote fraud or intimidation in today's election. Hundreds of lawyers and observers have been deployed at key polling places. But it's likely to be a relatively quiet election from a litigation angle unless the final margin is razor-thin. The Brown surge came so suddenly there was no time to plan anything devious beyond the usual negative commercials -- which in this race ran everywhere, including, for the first time in anyone's memory, The Weather Channel.

-- John Fund

* Could this possibly indicate a dawning awareness among blacks that the integrity of the election results is more important than winning?

[keaggy220]

I'm anxiously awaiting the liberal response to tonight's events from Jbuck or RebLem! I hope they are alright and didn't do anything rash!!!

They will be encouraged by Richard Trumka, the WH surrogate first to fire a salvo across the bow of the public fed up with this administrations radical left agenda. Just a Morris predicted, Trumka waves the bloody shirt of Congressional failure to pass anything, claiming the Mass vote was a clear mandate from the people to pass Obama's agenda. Hemlock, anyone?

Dear me, this would be reaching a whole new level of suicidal denial. The man went around begging people for their vote just so he could kill this maniacal health care bill.

[Madame]

Poor Obama couldn't deal with a heckler and went to the well too many times trying to make light of Brown's truck.

Hilarious! "Uhh... ummm.... uhhh... we're ok... uhhh..........."



He commands no respect whatsoever, which is appropriate since he deserves none.

It was embarrassing. Did anyone catch his "don't need any more politicians who just talk the talk" ... whew. "His" crowd certainly didn't help get things back under control. Personally, I think these rah rah rallies are distasteful, but then again, nobody asked me.