Wednesday, January 20, 2010

GOP takes Senate seat in Massachusetts; Dems filibuster-proof majority is gone

NEW YORK TIMES
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: January 19, 2010
BOSTON — Scott Brown, a little-known Republican state senator, rode an old pickup truck and a growing sense of unease among independent voters to an extraordinary upset Tuesday night when he was elected to fill the Senate seat that was long held by Edward M. Kennedy in the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Massachusetts.

By a decisive margin, Mr. Brown defeated Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, who had been considered a prohibitive favorite to win just over a month ago after she easily won the Democratic primary.

With all precincts counted, Mr. Brown had 52 percent of the vote to Ms. Coakley’s 47 percent.

“Tonight the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken,” Mr. Brown told his cheering supporters in a victory speech, standing in front of a backdrop that said “The People’s Seat.”

The election left Democrats in Congress scrambling to salvage a bill overhauling the nation’s health care system, which the late Mr. Kennedy had called “the cause of my life.” Mr. Brown has vowed to oppose the bill, and once he takes office the Democrats will no longer control the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome filibusters.

There were immediate signs that the bill had become imperiled. House members indicated they would not quickly pass the bill the Senate approved last month. And after the results were announced, one centrist Democratic senator, Jim Webb of Virginia, called on Senate leaders to suspend any votes on the Democrats’ health care legislation until Mr. Brown is sworn into office. The election, he said, was a referendum on both health care and the integrity of the government process.

Beyond the bill, the election of a man supported by the Tea Party movement also represented an unexpected reproach by many voters to President Obama after his first year in office, and struck fear into the hearts of Democratic lawmakers, who are already worried about their prospects in the midterm elections later this year.

Mr. Brown was able to appeal to independents who were anxious about the economy and concerned about the direction taken by Democrats, now that they control both Beacon Hill and Washington. He rallied his supporters when he said, at the last debate, that he was not running for Mr. Kennedy’s seat but for “the people’s seat.”

That seat, held for nearly half a century by Mr. Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, will now be held for the next two years by a Republican who has said he supports waterboarding as an interrogation technique for terrorism suspects, opposes a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants unless they leave the country. It was a sharp swing of the pendulum, but even Democratic voters said they wanted the Obama administration to change direction.

“I’m hoping that it gives a message to the country,” said Marlene Connolly, 73, of North Andover, a lifelong Democrat who said she cast her first vote for a Republican on Tuesday. “I think if Massachusetts puts Brown in, it’s a message of ‘that’s enough.’ Let’s stop the giveaways and let’s get jobs going.”

6 comments:

  1. This made me pritty angry over the last week. Why is it that when Republicans are in power, they only need 50 (+1 with Cheney) votes to pass a bill, but Democrats need 60? That seemes very stupid to me. I'm not saying that democrats never filibuster a bill, but atleast they use it in moderation. They claim that the American people don't want these bills. Uhh... Well they were elected by the people weren't they? You may say that they changed there mind and that dems should lose power. Uhh... It's not like a majority of Americans wanted Bush in office in year 7, yet he still sustained power somehow.

    About Brown's election:
    It was a fluke. This article says "even Democratic voters said they wanted the Obama administration to change direction." That's because Democrats are fed up with the liberals in the senate giving away a bill to corperate America (a.k.a. the healthcare industry). The only reason Brown was elected was because the Tea Party members, Republicans, other conservatives, some independants, and fed up Democrats. The people voted against Coakley (even though she was for a Public Option) to send a message to Congress of how fed up they are becoming.

    I personally don't believe in a 60 vote to restrict a bill.. It is being ABUSED by Republicans. In no time since the filibuster was introduced, has the filibuster been used more than 50 times in one year.... well... Until 2008. That year, Republicans filibustered bills 112 times... That's an abuse of a loophole. Therefore, it should be removed. Immediatly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Personally, I'm sick and tired of politicians in general, so all I can do is pray that Brown isn't going to convert to the norm of politicians I have witnessed. Also, I was appalled by the acceptance speach that he gave to America, in which he offered his daughters out to the public without their consent. I know it was a joke, but he should at least try to remain serious. I was completely surprised that Massachusetts of all states actually elected a Republican senator, being as liberal as they are. Now that I read Zane's comment, I think in some ways he is right. Many Democrats are, for some reason, upset with the Obama administration. If I was liberal like them, I would fall in love with the administration. They are trying to get this health care bill passed faster than I had originally expected they would. As for me, I would prefer that we just calmed down and talked this over. The bill is definitely a lot to go over, so let's stop and take a breather. Anyway, as I was saying about the fed up Democrats, it doesn't make sense to me why they would elect a Republican if they are upset that the Obama administration wasn't being progressive enough. They might be trying to send a message, but electing a senator who opposes the liberal views is definitely not the way to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. -Zane Huseth

    Although I don't appreciate how they are going about doing this, (rushing the bill and ignoring the specifics), I could see why they would do so. I personally don't love the bill, but I think that it is better than the current system. Justin, remember, when people get emotional, they don't exactly have the same logic thinking skills as usual. They tend to ignore logic and adhease with what they have grown up learning. I agree Justin, this is not the smartest way to do it, but you can't always understand why people do what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, now that I think about it, I have a big feeling that not ALL the Democrats who voted for Brown did it because they were thinking illogically due to a type of blind rage or uncontrollable emotions. I think that some Democrats also may have decided to do that out of sheer curiosity. Massachusetts has been a very liberal state, voting for very liberal officials. Perhaps they just wanted to try something different for once; however, it's anybody's guess. I don't think that the Democrats were influenced by the Tea Party Movement. It will take a lot more than one movement to change the views of another group of people.

    Hmmm, I also heard that there are polls going around the nation asking whether or not you would vote for Barack Obama or Scott Brown for the next presidential election. To use an analogy, that's basically like voting for a Grannysmith apple or a Red Delicious apple. But for a conservative like myself, what if I don't really care for apples? Maybe I prefer the Palin orange over the Brown apple. I know it's just a poll, but it's pretty ridiculious that people are already jumping to conclusions about the next election.

    ReplyDelete
  5. -Zane Huseth

    Agreed. Jumping to conclusions on how the next elections are going to turn out would be like saying Hoover was going to win the election in 1932. It's really ignorant and should be avoided at all costs.

    That doesn't stop Fox News commentators... While I'm not going to rant on how Fox News is deceptively conservative when it comes to their news section, it sure doesn't stop conservative punnets like O'reily (yes he has admitted he is a conservative even though he is a registered Independant), Beck, and Hannity from spreading misleaded quotes on how Democrats are praising Mao, or how Obama is a socialist. Don't get me wrong, the left does it too. People like Racheal Maddow or Keith Olberman are not exactly "truth fairies" either. I just wish that anyone who votes could see both sides of the isle and then make a choice instead of just watching Fox or MSNBC and following whatever they say.

    In my opinion, it seems like CNN is the fairest of all the media outlets when it comes to parties.

    ReplyDelete