What does Scott Brown's win mean?

The problem with that approach, ci, is that there isn't anyone willing to step in who isn't of the same ilk. Party regulars from both sides will continue to govern via politics as usual regardless of who they are.

Having said that --- I'm a firm believer in term limits and 12 seems like a nice cutoff for me to look towards an anti-incumbency vote. That gives them enough time to get some work done and not enough time to become a career politician to the detriment of the rest of us.

Sorry for the derailing response...

Back to Scott Brown -- I don't know what his win means. My crystal ball is fuzzy. I hope it means that the "blue dog Dems" and "moderate Republicans" can start to have a louder voice in Washington.

I don't know, JPB.

Between their inordinate power to derail the presidents health care plan (including Ben Nelson's almost successful extortion attempt), their ability to pass the Defense of Marriage Act and prevent Obama from repealing the ridiculous "Don't ask Don't Tell" policy...

The Blue Dogs are plenty loud ((although moderate Republicans are pretty invisible these days)).

In my opinion, it is the extraordinary amount of money that Blue Dogs get from Corporations and Business lobbies that is truly troubling.

Mr. Brown, Y is there a big GREEN HAND next to your name ?

Why did Brown win, etc.

First, there was no overwhelming rejection of Dem reform by the public. Public approval was pretty close to 50-50. Moreover, there would have been a large majority in favor were it not for lies from the right: e.g., death panels, coverage of abortion and illegal aliens, reform would not be funded, etc., all blatant lies.

It was a fairly close election, lost mainly due to a horrible campaign by Cokely. E.g., she literally took a two-week just before the election. Throughout, she treated the general election as though it were a formality.

It was unfortunate that there were political payoffs for reform votes, but that happens all the time. Moreover, the payoffs were nits compared to the massive, and needed, health-care reform being considered.

The debates were on C-Span ad nauseam. It was only the final meetings following passage in both houses that were private, which is the case for most legislation. Why include Reps who swore they would do all to kill reform.

Universal in other countries is wildly popular with the people. Any politician who opposed would be politically destroyed. Cost per capita is about half what we spend, and is a half or less of the GDP as compared to us. Our Medicare is in financial trouble because the right has cut funding for it several times. (More borrow and spend.) It is ten times more cost efficient than any of the insurance companies, which take 30 cents on the dollar of premiums for overhead. (Med takes 3 cents.)

Since what happens now is beyond my control, I will not worry about it.

And the bill that was passed by the congress/house was a horrible, horrible, horrible bill that would have done nothing to reduce costs.



Not that I support overhead, but overhead generally = jobs (which we need more of right now).



I call BS.

I've been pounding that hammer all along; the congress' health care plan had nothing to control costs. It deserved to get lost because of all the special deals they made to get the 60 votes. Any plan must treat all people equally; no special favors for states that hold out to the last minute to get their vote.

Your right BUT if we have to rely on republican legislators to approve health care legislation that will help the majority and controll costs we are screwed.

No; no special deals that doesn't treat all Americans equally on health care. The primary goal of health care is to have a universal health plan that will eventually save cost; and the outlook is for the short-term. Not some far distant expectations of cost savings, but identifiable savings from different aspects of health care. There are many areas where savings can be had, and some hospitals have already instituted them.

Who is given preference? The thing with Nelson is that Nebraska will get help with Medicaid.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-20-2010/indecision-2010---the-re-changening

I, for one, took note that Obama, prior to the fate of Coakley, spoke about Brown's being "independent." Afterward in his acceptance speech, Brown alluded to the fact he's independent, and owes nobody anything - but, the right decisions for America. (paraphrased).

What does that mean. Does Obama think he can persuade Brown to vote his way?

I doubt that very much, because Obama didn't listen to the American People, and that's where Brown has a head's up.

Ironically, I see a lot of similarities between the elction of Brown and the election of Obama more than a year ago. A virtually unknown, charismatic young man steps forward to oppose the established order and the voters love him for it. Sound familiar?

Brown is not interested in health-care reform for the nation -- MA already has universal, which he supported.

Stop being so naive.
There's no difference between Hollywood and Washington; the people only tend to be uglier.

With Scott Brown's win the Republicans have been claiming they are now in charge. Since that win, I have lost $$$ as the market has dropped.

Can we please put the democrats back in charge before I lose more money? I lost enough when Bush was in charge.

So, who do you think is in charge with a Democratic president, and majorities in both houses?

Thank GOD Roger..
There were those days of panic when the GOP claimed to be in charge with their decisive win to take back the country.

Could you remind all those RW talking heads about the reality so I will make money in the market tomorrow.

I have been wondering who the Republicans are going to pick for the new majority leader...