Massachusetts's has spoken!

[Rigs11]

GOP Sen.-elect Scott Brown pro-choice on abortion
Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts said Sunday he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts said Sunday he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.

Brown told ABC's "This Week" that he disagrees with his party's position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion should be overturned.

Brown says the abortion question is one that's best handled by a woman, her family and her doctor.

Asked if his position puts him out of step with the Republican Party, Brown said, "Well, I've always been a big-tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner."

Brown won the Senate seat long held by liberal Democrat Edward Kennedy, who died last summer. His Jan. 19 victory gave his party 41 of the Senate's 100 seats, enough to block votes.

The Republican National Committee on Friday passed a resolution urging leaders to determine if candidates adhere "wholeheartedly" to the party platform before backing them. But a stricter proposal would have required those seeking support to agree to at least eight of 10 positions on issues including abortion, gay marriage and gun control.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010947415_politics01.html

[gunns]

he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.


OMG I agree with a Republican. Hell has certainly frozen over.

[gyldenlove]

When you wrote that headline I was imagining some indian chief called Massachusetts.

[Rigs11]

When you wrote that headline I was imagining some indian chief called Massachusetts.

it was a jab at the rightards who placed so much emphasis on Brown's victory.

[Garcia Bronco]

it was a jab at the rightards who placed so much emphasis on Brown's victory.

What do you mean by "rightards"? I have seen this type of name calling before to generalize a group of people. Are you wearing white sheets?

[yavoon]

it was a jab at the rightards who placed so much emphasis on Brown's victory.

I don't get it either. I suppose you're saying he is somewhat pro-abortion means that the democrats actually won? I don't know how accurate it is to call him pro-choice though, since he supports the late term abortion ban. and as all good pro-choicers know, it's a womens right to choose to kill whatever is inside her at anytime she wants. which scott brown does not support.

opposing late term abortion is at the very least a sign of some humanity and a distancing from the radicalism of the ideology of pro-choice.

[Florida_Bronco]

The Republican National Committee on Friday passed a resolution urging leaders to determine if candidates adhere "wholeheartedly" to the party platform before backing them. But a stricter proposal would have required those seeking support to agree to at least eight of 10 positions on issues including abortion, gay marriage and gun control.

It's pretty clear they aren't learning their lesson.

[JJJ]

Republicans need to be pretty realistic the Independents in Massachusetts are only letting Brown borrow that seat for a couple years just to prove a point. It will go back to the Dems in 2012 I am pretty sure.

[Rigs11]

What do you mean by "rightards"? I have seen this type of name calling before to generalize a group of people. Are you wearing white sheets?

Repubs that act retarted. Basically the cherleaders around here proclaiming that Brown's victory was the end of the dems.That the whole country had spoken though massachussetts. basically the rhetoric that they get from the rightards like Beck, limbaugh that they just spew on this forum. "Socialist this..communist that...end of the country...

[Garcia Bronco]

Repubs that act retarted. Basically the cherleaders around here proclaiming that Brown's victory was the end of the dems.That the whole country had spoken though massachussetts. basically the rhetoric that they get from the rightards like Beck, limbaugh that they just spew on this forum. "Socialist this..communist that...end of the country...

Well...again...I don't think you can generalize like that. But no, the end of the Dems is probably next fall unless the economy significantly improves...and it won't because this Congress and Admin have not taken the steps to make that happen. They have not curbed spending in anyway shape or form from a 10K Foot view. They continually suggest tax increases. The legislation they do propose only gets us deeper in debt. Frankly they are quite incompetent.

[Bronx33]

So losing ted kennedys seat to a republican was nothing :spit:

[Crushaholic]

OMG I agree with a Republican. Hell has certainly frozen over.


There are others who have the same view, believe it or not. Senators Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe are two who immediately come to mind...

[Rigs11]

So losing ted kennedys seat to a republican was nothing :spit:

nope but you right...err...repubs keep stating that the whole country had spoken.Well then the whole country must have spoken that they are pro choice right?

[Bronx33]

Perfect! hopefully obama takes this just as lightly as you are heck they already took it lightly and the result was losing a long held kennedy seat but you're right it had nothing to do with the people not being happy with obamas policies.

[Crushaholic]

nope but you right...err...repubs keep stating that the whole country had spoken.Well then the whole country must have spoken that they are pro choice right?

I didn't follow the campaign too closely, but I'm guessing abortion wasn't a major platform...

[Rigs11]

Perfect! hopefully obama takes this just as lightly as you are heck they already took it lightly and the result was losing a long held kennedy seat but you're right it had nothing to do with the people not being happy with obamas policies.

Well then the whole country must have spoken that they are pro choice right?

[barryr]

Wow, liberals are never done showing their stupidity. Yes, to be a republican, means you can't be pro choice. Just because liberals fall lock step with every democrat issue no matter how lame it is doesn't mean it goes that way for everybody else.

Besides, Brown says he opposes federal funding for abortion, so when did liberals start agreeing with that?

Only the dimwits continue to make abortion some big issue when nobody in years has even tried seriously to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I believe the economy is what is on most people's minds, not this nonsense.

[cutthemdown]

Obviously no social conservative will ever win in NE. Whats happening is because repubs got asses kicked they will be forced to change. Just like Dems recruited blue dogs to run in conservative stats, repubs are now looking for fiscal conservatives that are a bit more socially liberal to try and win seats back.

Brown is a new type of republican and it may catch on.

fiscally conservative
conservaive foreign policy
liberal social policy

[Florida_Bronco]

Wow, liberals are never done showing their stupidity. Yes, to be a republican, means you can't be pro choice. Just because liberals fall lock step with every democrat issue no matter how lame it is doesn't mean it goes that way for everybody else.

The Republican National Committee on Friday passed a resolution urging leaders to determine if candidates adhere "wholeheartedly" to the party platform before backing them. But a stricter proposal would have required those seeking support to agree to at least eight of 10 positions on issues including abortion, gay marriage and gun control.

So...ummm....yeah.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So losing ted kennedys seat to a republican was nothing :spit:

Brown didn't really run as a republican - he ran as an outsider.

[Bronx33]

Brown didn't really run as a republican - he ran as an outsider.


I will simulate a chalkboard...

1- Piss poor attempt to hold ted kennedys seat
2- Underestimated brown x10
3- Underestimated the democrat voters
4- Underestimated independent voters
5- still don't get it x10 re: obamas speech
6- LOST TED KENNEDYS LONG HELD SEAT
7- That should have never happened in a million years and you know it.
8- suck it :approve:
9- deal with it hes a one term president
10- progressives suck ( which you are ) but won't admit. :kiss:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I will simulate a chalkboard...


More like simulate a retard.

All that hot air, and you didn't even refute what I said in my last post.

BTW, when have I ever denied I was a progressive?

Lastly - regressives suck, and eight years of Bush is proof. :yep:

[Bronx33]

God you suck at this....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

God you suck at this....

Translation: "No, I can't deny that Brown ran not so much as a republican as an outsider."

http://www.bartcop.com/o-dis-progress.jpg

[Bronx33]

Ahhhh time for cartoons ( I WIN!)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why the GOP should still be nervous (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2435041/posts)
<small>
Politico ^ (http://209.157.64.200/%5Ehttp://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=53A169F7-18FE-70B2-A80D475CDEADA7CE) | January 22, 2010 | Jim VandeHei and James Hohmann </small>
<small>
(http://209.157.64.200/%7Epresidio9/)</small>
Republicans are riding high in the wake of Scott Brown’s win, talking up an authentic resurgence for their party and a real chance for reclaiming power.

Don’t bet on it.

Yes, it is indisputable that the GOP has surged, especially in the past several months. Republicans won three major races in tough states — and watched the percentage of Americans who prefer Republicans over Democrats in hypothetical matchups rise to the highest level since 2004.

But it is also indisputable that the rise has little to do with the voters’ view of Republicans writ large — and that the very concerns that got them booted from power persist today.

Voters “have fallen out of love with the Democrats,” said Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.). “They haven’t yet fallen back in love with us.”

POLITICO talked with many of the country’s most experienced political operatives, and each one warned Republicans against irrational exuberance.

Former New York Rep. Susan Molinari: “We have earned the right to crow a little bit. But the lesson we’ve learned from all of these races is that you ... can’t take anything for granted.”

Republican strategist Mary Matalin: “Killer negatives have lost their magic. This requires no attitude. Now we have the players on the field, and we just need to play. We remember how to do it.”

Former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.): “Voters don’t want triumphalism. They still like the president as a person, so they don’t want to see a party celebrating his decline. ... The country wants to see the parties working together.”

Matthew Dowd, who consulted for former President George W. Bush and voted for President Barack Obama: “If any Republicans are running around town celebrating in jubilation, they should remember that in the country’s constant state of change, neither party gets more than a moment.”

Republicans on Capitol Hill hope their moment will come again in November. But the numbers are daunting across the board.

The most important ones: 40, the net seats to win the House, and 10, the net seats to win the Senate, are very difficult — perhaps impossible in the case of the Senate — to achieve. Republicans have picked up 40 or more House seats only seven times since 1912, when the chamber grew to 435 seats. They have picked up 10 or more Senate seats only four times in that period. They have done both three times in the past century.

It seems certain they will pick up some seats, perhaps as many as two dozen or more in the House. That would be in line with the historical average pickup for the opposition party in a president’s first term.

But away from the cameras, Republicans admit that a series of structural problems will make it hard to transform those gains into a win-back-control movement.

Privately, top Republicans tell POLITICO that they are most concerned right now about their bank balance. They are doing well in recruiting candidates but worry they might not have the cash to sufficiently fund them.

Consider the House. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has $15 million in the bank right now — nearly four times more than the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Officials say that, while small and large donors are still chipping in, the recession has caused a dip in contributions from middle-level donors — often the small-business types who are feeling the economic pinch.

At the candidate level, if you tally up all the money for everyone running, Democrats have about $60 million more ($175 million to $114 million), according to numbers compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Money is one of the many reasons top GOP officials wish the party had not elected Michael Steele as Republican National Committee chairman. Senior Republicans don’t like his loose lips or his wildly improvisational style. But they could live with that if the RNC were a cash cow. It is not, in part because of Steele’s unwillingness to personally stroke top donors.

The RNC has outraised the Democratic National Committee, but it has less money to spend right now: $9 million vs. the DNC’s $13 million. More troubling to GOP insiders on Capitol Hill is that some major donors say they don’t want to give money to Steele’s RNC.

Republicans are, however, taking some comfort in signals that some of these same contributors are funneling their money to the committees tasked with winning House, Senate and gubernatorial contests.

Democrats continue to get way more money than Republicans from groups outside the official party structure. The new Supreme Court ruling opens the door for corporations to rush back into politics, but it’s too early to tell how aggressively they will underwrite the GOP, given the inherent risk involved in taking on the majority party.

Barring a huge infusion of corporate cash, the Democrats have a decisive advantage. Not insurmountable, but by no means insignificant.

Republicans are publicly boasting that money will pour in after the Massachusetts win. If so, they could have enough to compete in November.

But Republicans still will fight against another set of numbers: the large number of voters who simply don’t like the brand the GOP is selling. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found only 30 percent of those surveyed had a favorable view of Republicans. That is 8 percentage points lower than the favorability rating for Democrats. And 22 points lower than Obama’s.

“The American people are against their agenda,” Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said of the Democrats. But Westmoreland said the Republicans are “having a hard time” getting their agenda out, too. “We have got to do a better job getting that out.”

Even Republicans aren’t thrilled with Republicans. A CBS News poll showed only 55 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of their congressional delegation.
And voters also still don’t trust Republicans with big decisions. A recent Washington Post poll found 24 percent trusted congressional Republicans to make the right decisions for the country — 8 points fewer than Democrats and 23 points fewer than Obama.
“Scott Brown didn’t even really run as a Republican,” Dowd notes. “He ran as an outsider.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) spent three days in Massachusetts before the election, and he said that even Brown supporters told him they wanted to be sure “Republicans get the message: ‘You didn’t do your job well enough when you were there.’” Still, he said, “They do recognize the Democrats have been a lot worse.”

It is a fair point for Republicans to argue that what matters more is the public’s view of the party in power, because voters have a long history of taking out their frustrations on those with the keys. Indeed, one of the most troubling signs for Democrats right now is that the public is losing faith in their ability to lead on virtually every domestic issue on the table.

Republicans are gleefully proclaiming the death of the Obama presidency, or at least his agenda. They claim the public has turned on him, holding him accountable for the sour economy and unemployment. However, the polls don’t back this up.

The WSJ/NBC poll found 65 percent felt Obama inherited the economic mess, while only 17 percent said his policies were “mostly responsible” for the current situation.
That said, just ask Massachusetts Democratic Senate nominee Martha Coakley and former New Jersey Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine who’s taking the brunt of the public’s anger right now.

Of course, it’s possible that the wave of voter discontent is now cresting and will have fizzled somewhat 10 months from now. The economy could begin a rebound.
But even if the current political environment holds, the demographic numbers will remain the biggest obstacle to any longer-term gains for the GOP.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said last week he was very concerned about the lack of diversity among GOP candidates and their supporters. The most obvious place for gains in this area would be with Hispanics, the fastest-growing minority group. But a recent Daily Kos poll showed three-quarters of Hispanics hold unfavorable opinions of Republicans. There’s little evidence Republicans are aggressively working to fix their diversity problem: Aside from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, each of their potential 2012 presidential candidates is a white male.

Finally, one number Republicans are closely watching in the short term is the number of conservatives who will challenge establishment-backed candidates in key races. If this number grows too big, it will drain resources and highlight the deep divisions that remain inside the GOP.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ahhhh time for cartoons - according to the rules of BushWorld, ( I WIN!)

Being a regressive republican is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded. Ha!

[Bronx33]

Change your name to LAWB..


Lame assed whiney bitch...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Change your name to LAWB..


Lame assed whiney b****...

Translation: "Can't hang in debate - can't refute last few posts - must cop out with ad hominem."

BTW, you should change your name to something that translates to "another Internet tough guy hiding behind his computer."

[Bronx33]

What is there to debate? you whine about bush about every topic which i pointed out numerous times? i gotta admit theres not really much to debate after the dust settles so we are left with making fun of you (which i did ) and it's fun! what you not having fun now?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What is there to debate?

Um, the significance of the Brown victory?

That's what we were talking about - remember?

Is your short-term memory (or your powers of comprehension) really that flawed?

Or maybe you're just drunk on the aforementioned regressive Kool-Aid?


you whine about bush about every topic...

Where "whine" = "calls you on your hypocrisy and bullsh_t, questions your motives," etc.


i gotta admit theres not really much to debate after the dust settles so we are left with making fun of you (which i did ) and it's fun! what you not having fun now?

Meanwhile, here in the world of the intellectually honest, you're left looking like a complete idiot who can only respond to direct challenges with sophomoric name-calling (in other words, a typical regressive.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/ws-that-guy.gif

[JJJ]

http://www.bartcop.com/ws-that-guy.gif

Who is the one with all the Goldman Sachs guys in his cabinet?

The list of former Goldman Sachs employees holding top positions in the Obama administration includes:

• Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, who is the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (himself the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).

• Reuben Jeffery III, former managing partner at Goldman Sachs, who holds the post of undersecretary of state for economic, business, and agricultural affairs.

• Neel Kashkari, former Goldman Sachs vice president, who is the assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability, responsible for administering the TARP funds.

• Dianna Farrell, former financial analyst at Goldman Sachs, who serves as deputy director of the National Economic Council.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who is the one with all the Goldman Sachs guys in his cabinet?

The list of former Goldman Sachs employees holding top positions in the Obama administration includes:

• Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, who is the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (himself the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).

• Reuben Jeffery III, former managing partner at Goldman Sachs, who holds the post of undersecretary of state for economic, business, and agricultural affairs.

• Neel Kashkari, former Goldman Sachs vice president, who is the assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability, responsible for administering the TARP funds.

• Dianna Farrell, former financial analyst at Goldman Sachs, who serves as deputy director of the National Economic Council.

....and you missed the entire point of the cartoon. :oyvey:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Did the Repigs steal the Mass Senate seat?

Looks like Ohio '04 all over again...

The quoted "turnout" percentages are the sum of COUNTED votes divided by the number of registered voters times 100 (to make it a percentage) Therefore the "turnout" actually includes the cast votes that were discarded without being counted.

How did the optical scanners that are now all owned by the Republicans perform compared with hand counting?

No surprises, they flipped the Coakley and Brown totals. The figures are eerie for their obviousness.

Count method -------Brown % -Coakley %-Libertarian % -C/O to B/McC --"Turnout" (2)
____________________________ ____________________________ ratio (1)

Republican owned------52.00 --- 47.02-----0.98 ------ 52.76 -----------58.80
counting machines

Hand counted --------- 47.00 ----51.78 ---- 1.22------ 59.31 ----------60.31

Independently owned----49.32----50.01-----0.67------ 61.61 -----------70.00
counting machines (3)

Levers ------------------ 65.08 ----33.59-----1.33 ------44.64--------50.00

(1) If the Coakley votes are expressed as a proportion of Obama's votes, and Brown's as a proportion of McCain's votes, and the ratio of these figures is calculated, it should be roughly constant since there is no reason for this ratio to change. Also calculated are the relationships between Brown's votes on each equipment type and the votes for Barr/Baldwin, and also the relationship between Coakley's votes and McKinney/Nader. The variation in these confirms that the Coakley/Brown figures were flipped on the Republican machines, and that Coakley's votes were undercounted on the lever machines.

(2) (100% - turnout %) = the combined none voting number (reasonably constant unless suppressed) plus the uncounted votes cast.

(3) Used in only in Milton - acts as cross check by being very similar to the hand count result.

The lever machines were shimmed in favor of Brown by discarding about 8% of the votes cast for Coakley. The person that rigged those machines forgot that the third party candidate total would increase as a percentage of the total count under a three candidate scenario. Can we cross check this? Yes - the alleged turnout (which actually measures turnout minus the uncounted votes that were cast) is below the predicted percentages. The lever figures are easily detected as false because the person who 'fixed' them went way over the top on some machines. See Southbridge for example - 34% turnout (That shows how many uncounted Coakley votes were trimmed) and Coakley only getting 42% while Obama got 65% of the vote in 2008. These figures, combined with the third party 'surge' to almost 3% is an outlier that discloses the magnitude of skimming Coakley's votes.

__________________________________________________ ____________


Here are the locations of the figures:

In this link, you will find the 2,168 precincts listed by groups in their 350 counting city locations for the 2008 election:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/election_resul... /

In the next link, you will find the 2010 figures arranged in the same way except that the order has been changed (do not cut and paste as a whole, go line by line to make sure the data is correctly arrayed) Note the 'turnout' figure is not a true turnout figure. If you take the total of COUNTED votes and divide by the SOS sites figure for registered voters, you get this figure except for those locations (primarily Worcester) that had purged their voter rolls.

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate...

Much of the counting equipment info is on the next link but was confirmed by on the ground people from BBV:

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleclk/clkidx.htm

If you have not been following the discussions of Republican partisans owning the various companies, use Google. ES&S bought Diebold's election division and renamed it. Sequoia is independent. No one owns hand counting, it is done with counters from every candidate observing at all times.

Here is the MA SOS PDF of registrations:

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/st_county_town_en...

All the other figures can be derived from these FACTS.

Here are the primary results for you to do the same analysis if you want:

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elespeif/senatorincongre...

[Bronx33]

LMAO! progessively whiney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x514920

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00072.htm

Check out other Faun Otter whiney socialist articals

http://www.google.com/search?q=Faun+Otter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO! progessively whiney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x514920

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00072.htm

Check out other Faun Otter whiney socialist articals

http://www.google.com/search?q=Faun+Otter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Typical repuke response:

You can't challenge a single claim she made - just the usual attack/smear the messenger.

Your seat on the short bus is secure.