Anyone who doubts a liberal bias in the media needs to look no further than tonight. In a race that was a bellweather on the political mood in the US, only Fox covered Scott Brown's victory acceptance speech??

Watching Rachel Maddow, Keith Obermann, etc. babble on blaming Coakley, and making the point NOT to blame Obama & the Democratic agenda for this historic defeat is pure folly!!!!!

 

A Democratic campaign, in the most democratic state in the union, for Teddy Kennedy's seat, in a campaign where the opponent openly said he would kill Teddy's legacy issue--Healthcare reform--Was won by a Republican who was down 35% points a month ago??

 

There's some very angry voters out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Maybe the others were still voting for the 10th time, or was it twenty? Call Ed.

And back comes the pendulum.

I wouldn't get too excited, Coakley was a miserable candidate and Brown is about as liberal of a Republican as you'll find. But this does put the Democrats' backs against the wall on healthcare.

 

Coakley won her primary by 19 points. Surely if she was a miserable candidate she wouldn't have won so handily.

 

The Democratic spin machine is amazing. Last night for the first time ever I watched MSNBC and listened to Olberman (who takes a backseat to no one when it come to arrogance and stupidity I might add), Maddow and Matthews absolutely throw her under the bus. Then Maddow blamed the loss on sexism saying that Mass. isn't as liberal as the rest of the country believes. They were already saying that it was not any indication of American's dissatisfaction of Obamunism. They were also trying to illustrate how Health Care Deform could be pushed through before Brown is seated. They just don't get it. I hope they continue not to get it. Harry Reid is on the chopping block.

The national implications are undeniable, but I wouldn't be too quick to cast this as a blanket indictment of Obama.

 

Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney to the governor's office a few years ago, and it isn't as Brown knocked a Kennedy out of the Senate. He beat your basic nationally-unknown Democrat, one who by all accounts ran a crappy campaign.

 

Perhaps you are right. Brown didn't knock a Kennedy out of the Senate, but he did beat a candidate heavily supported and endorsed by the Kennedy family. I believe Ted Kennedy's wife campaigned heavily for Coakley.

 

Coackley may have been a nationally unknown Democrat, but she was very well know in MA, currently serving as the State Attorney General, which I assume is an elected office and would conclude that in the not too recent past she was obviously somewhat popular with the MA voter. As to crappy campaign comment, I know the talking heads in DC are trying to spin that as the reason for the loss, which is somewhat convenient in my opinion. However, in a state where the registered Dems supposedly out number the registered Reps on a 3-1 basis one would think that a candidate currently holding a state wide office could survive some campaign mistakes and still beat a Rep candidate with so much on the line (national implication wise). If you are a Dem voter in MA, you agreed with Obama's agenda, and you knew that the outcome of this race could have major implications on the ability of Obama to implement his agenda, are you really going to worry about whether Coakley knew what team a pitcher played for, or whether there were still terrorists in Afghanistan? Probably not. You were going to over look those blunders and the other campaign mistakes she made in order to support Obama's agenda. You may hold your nose doing it, but you'd still vote for her in spite of her crappy campaign. I'd be more likely to accept the crappy campaign excuse if this race had been someother state. But this happened in MA!

 

Some can deny the reasons for Brown's win until the cows come home if they want to, but they are being ostrich like in my opinion.

 

The American voter is gullible, but not totally stupid. In my opinion, the President campaigned on a platform of moderation and consensus building which got him elected because the gullible American voter believed his campaign rhetoric and ignored his prior voting record. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he has governed with an agenda to the left of the his campaign rhetoric and rather than finding consensus, has resorted to back room, Chicago style politics and maneuvering to move his agenda forward. The American voter in MA, NJ and VA., was smart enough to realize such and thus failed to support the candidates that he wanted, and in the case of MA the candidate that he needed to continue his agenda.

 

Just my take on things and all are welcome to have their own opinion.

Great post

Still, in MA that hasn't mattered much in the past and coming on the heels of the other two recent elections there is a lot to be excited about, or concerned about as the case may be.

 

Here's Jim Webb's take on it.

 

"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."

 

Here in VA I've always liked both of our Senators but Webb has long been a man who speaks his mind, convictions and heart whether it was party spin or not. :thumb:

Perhaps you are right. Brown didn't knock a Kennedy out of the Senate, but he did beat a candidate heavily supported and endorsed by the Kennedy family. I believe Ted Kennedy's wife campaigned heavily for Coakley.

Ted Kennedy also campaigned hard against Mitt Romney, a former Senate opponent, in the 2003 governor's race ... Romney won anyway.

 

Given that, is isn't a huge shock that a non-Kennedy candidate could be beaten, even in Massachusetts, in this political climate.

Coackley may have been a nationally unknown Democrat, but she was very well know in MA, currently serving as the State Attorney General, which I assume is an elected office and would conclude that in the not too recent past she was obviously somewhat popular with the MA voter.

How many average voters can name their state's attorney general? Compared to the Kennedys (and John Kerry, the state's other senator), she's a relative unknown.

As to crappy campaign comment, I know the talking heads in DC are trying to spin that as the reason for the loss, which is somewhat convenient in my opinion.

If she indeed took a two-week vacation in the middle of the campaign, and acted as if she had it in the bag (all of which has been reported), then she ran a crappy campaign.

If you are a Dem voter in MA, you agreed with Obama's agenda, and you knew that the outcome of this race could have major implications on the ability of Obama to implement his agenda, are you really going to worry about whether Coakley knew what team a pitcher played for, or whether there were still terrorists in Afghanistan? Probably not. You were going to over look those blunders and the other campaign mistakes she made in order to support Obama's agenda. You may hold your nose doing it, but you'd still vote for her in spite of her crappy campaign. I'd be more likely to accept the crappy campaign excuse if this race had been someother state. But this happened in MA!

 

Some can deny the reasons for Brown's win until the cows come home if they want to, but they are being ostrich like in my opinion.

 

The American voter is gullible, but not totally stupid. In my opinion, the President campaigned on a platform of moderation and consensus building which got him elected because the gullible American voter believed his campaign rhetoric and ignored his prior voting record. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he has governed with an agenda to the left of the his campaign rhetoric and rather than finding consensus, has resorted to back room, Chicago style politics and maneuvering to move his agenda forward. The American voter in MA, NJ and VA., was smart enough to realize such and thus failed to support the candidates that he wanted, and in the case of MA the candidate that he needed to continue his agenda.

 

Just my take on things and all are welcome to have their own opinion.

My problem with Obama isn't his alleged lefty agenda, but the way he has handled the health care reform issue. Instead of setting the tone and asking for specific planks in the legislation, he chose to let Pelosi and Reid take control of the process. Their efforts produced the mess that exists now.

Coakley won her primary by 19 points. Surely if she was a miserable candidate she wouldn't have won so handily.

 

The Democratic spin machine is amazing. Last night for the first time ever I watched MSNBC and listened to Olberman (who takes a backseat to no one when it come to arrogance and stupidity I might add), Maddow and Matthews absolutely throw her under the bus. Then Maddow blamed the loss on sexism saying that Mass. isn't as liberal as the rest of the country believes. They were already saying that it was not any indication of American's dissatisfaction of Obamunism. They were also trying to illustrate how Health Care Deform could be pushed through before Brown is seated. They just don't get it.

Funny ... I watched the replays of MSNBC's coverage last night, and I just saw them analyzing the issue. Mentioning the possibilities doesn't mean you're cheerleading for them.

Ted Kennedy was sworn in the NEXT day after his election.. Tsongas was sworn in 2 days after her election... No reason not to have Brown in his seat in a day or two....

I just have a mental image of Kennedy spinning, and spinning, and spinning!

Funny ... I watched the replays of MSNBC's coverage last night, and I just saw them analyzing the issue. Mentioning the possibilities doesn't mean you're cheerleading for them.

 

Are you really trying to say that MSNBC wasn't completely in the tank for the Democrat and isn't a huge cheerleader for Obamaunism?

Ted Kennedy also campaigned hard against Mitt Romney, a former Senate opponent, in the 2003 governor's race ... Romney won anyway.

 

Given that, is isn't a huge shock that a non-Kennedy candidate could be beaten, even in Massachusetts, in this political climate.

How many average voters can name their state's attorney general? Compared to the Kennedys (and John Kerry, the state's other senator), she's a relative unknown.

If she indeed took a two-week vacation in the middle of the campaign, and acted as if she had it in the bag (all of which has been reported), then she ran a crappy campaign.

My problem with Obama isn't his alleged lefty agenda, but the way he has handled the health care reform issue. Instead of setting the tone and asking for specific planks in the legislation, he chose to let Pelosi and Reid take control of the process. Their efforts produced the mess that exists now.

 

 

 

As to the fist bolded comment, isn't Obama's agenda setting the political climate? I think so and that's directly the point people are making. Obama's agenda and actions are so unpopular, even in a hugely Dem state like MA, that it is affecting the ability of Dems to get elected.

 

As to the second bolded comment, as a state wide elected official (which I assume is the case with the MA Attorney General) she still would have strong name recognition I would believe, wouldn't you?

Are you really trying to say that MSNBC wasn't completely in the tank for the Democrat and isn't a huge cheerleader for Obamaunism?

:thumb: Here's a fine example of analysis, MSNBC style: Olby at his "best" in a commentary about Brown.

 

It had nothing to do with Obama, when the polls show that he still very popular in Mass. This is rejection of the Democratic controlled Congress. This will be a good wake up call for the Democrats. Dems need to get their acts together.

 

:thumb: You nailed it. Americans always seem to gravitate back to a checks and balances act between these 2 branches of government. Americans are not happy with the Dem controlled congress and the way they seem to be handling having control of both branches. Just as they have not been happy with a Rep controlled congress when they controlled both branches.

 

I think most Americans want change, and are getting frustrated with both parties right now. The Dems take the brunt now because they have been in control for the past year.

Are you really trying to say that MSNBC wasn't completely in the tank for the Democrat and isn't a huge cheerleader for Obamaunism?

You referenced their coverage on the night of the election ... I gave you my view of it.

 

Olbermann's comment that you posted wasn't part of that night's coverage.