News Stories

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

what is cooperation minister?

The minister of helping poor countries develop. And/or taking advantage of them, as the case may be.

[mg1942]

10 reasons why the Massachusetts Senate race is very, very important

Spoiler for :

It's almost impossible to overstate the political significance of tomorrow's Massachusetts Senate election. Here are ten reasons why the election is so important nationally:

1. Massachusetts is one of the most Democratic states in the nation.
It's the only state that voted for George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972 and it hasn't elected a Republican senator since 1972. Its entire congressional delegation is Democratic. A GOP win would shock the liberal Democratic establishment that dismissed the 2009 gubernatorial setbacks in Virginia and New Jersey as mere flukes.

2. Health-care reform is at stake.
A victory for Scott Brown would deprive the Democrats of the 60 votes they need to push their brand of health-care reform through the Senate without any Republican support. That would be a huge defeat for President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. No way to spin that one.

3. Democrat-only legislative power would come to an end.
If Senate Democrats were to lose in Massachusetts, they'd lose their tenuous 60-seat majority needed to push forward legislation without bipartisan support. That means that moderate Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine would instantly become two of the most powerful people on Capitol Hill. One way or another, the Obama agenda would have to be retooled or scaled back.

4. This is the "Kennedy" seat.
For six decades, this particular Massachusetts Senate seat has been represented by Jack Kennedy, Ted Kennedy or a family designee (on a temporary basis). The symbolism of Republicans seizing the "Kennedy seat" is huge.

5. This is where the Boston Tea Party took place.
New England "patriots" rebelled against high taxes by dumping tea into Boston Harbor some 235 years ago. Now, the new generation of "Tea Party patriots" is hoping to dump candidates (Democrat and Republican) who raise taxes and increase federal spending. Again, a big symbolic thing.

6. This is a test of the power of political independents.
Fewer than one in eight Massachusetts voters admits to being a Republican. So GOP nominee Brown couldn't come close to victory without carrying independent voters by a wide margin and chipping away at the Democratic base. That's terrible news for Democrats looking ahead. If independents continue to flee the Democratic Party -- as they did in New Jersey and Virginia last year -- the midterm elections could be an absolute disaster for the ruling party.

7. It's a good indicator of voters' desire for divided government.
Even in Massachusetts, many voters want to send a message to Democrats in DC: One-party government is not a good idea. A Brown win -- or even a photo finish -- would tell us that even some Democrats want a limit on the power of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

8. It could give a jump start to GOP recruiting efforts in other states.
One of the keys to the Republican takeover of Congress is 1994 was a superb recruiting effort that enlisted big-name challengers to Democratic incumbents. If Brown wins in Massachusetts, the Texans atop the GOP congressional campaign efforts -- John Cornyn in the Senate and Pete Sessions in the House -- probably would have recruits lining up outside their offices to take on Democratic incumbents.

9. It's proof that Republicans don't have to be moderates to win on Democratic turf.
Conventional wisdom holds that Republicans need to recruit moderate candidates to win elections in the North and Midwest. But Scott Brown is an unapologetic conservative. If he can win (or come close) in Massachusetts, it sends a message that conservative Republicans can play ball in "blue" America.

10. It would be a personal and political repudiation of President Obama.
The president upped the political ante yesterday by flying to Boston for a rally with Democrat Martha Coakley. He told voters just how important her election was to him. By inserting himself into the race, Obama raised the stakes: If Massachusetts voters reject his personal appeal, it's a sign that the president's (remaining) personal popularity is not necessarily transferable to endangered Democrats.

[mg1942]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americ...nts/index.html

Earthquake victims, writhing in pain and grasping at life, watched doctors and nurses walk away from a field hospital Friday night after a Belgian medical team evacuated the area, saying it was concerned about security.

The decision left CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Sanjay Gupta as the only doctor at the hospital to get the patients through the night.

CNN initially reported, based on conversations with some of the doctors, that the United Nations ordered the Belgian First Aid and Support Team to evacuate. However, Belgian Chief Coordinator Geert Gijs, a doctor who was at the hospital with 60 Belgian medical personnel, said it was his decision to pull the team out for the night. Gijs said he requested U.N. security personnel to staff the hospital overnight, but was told that peacekeepers would only be able to evacuate the team.

CNN video from the scene Friday night shows the Belgian team packing up its supplies and leaving with an escort of blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeepers in marked trucks.

Gupta -- assisted by other CNN staffers, security personnel and at least one Haitian nurse who refused to leave -- assessed the needs of the 25 patients, but there was little they could do without supplies.

More people, some in critical condition, were trickling in late Friday.

"I've never been in a situation like this. This is quite ridiculous," Gupta said.

With a dearth of medical facilities in Haiti's capital, ambulances had nowhere else to take patients, some of whom had suffered severe trauma -- amputations and head injuries -- under the rubble. Others had suffered a great deal of blood loss, but there were no blood supplies left at the clinic.

Gupta feared that some would not survive the night.

He and the others stayed with the injured all night, after the medical team had left and after the generators gave out and the tents turned pitch black.

Gupta monitored patients' vital signs, administered painkillers and continued intravenous drips. He stabilized three new patients in critical condition.

At 3:45 a.m., he posted a message on Twitter: "pulling all nighter at haiti field hosp. lots of work, but all patients stable. turned my crew into a crack med team tonight."

He said the Belgian doctors did not want to leave their patients behind but were ordered out by the United Nations, which sent buses to transport them.

"There is concern about riots not far from here -- and this is part of the problem," Gupta said.

There have been scattered reports of violence throughout the capital.

"What is striking to me as a physician is that patients who just had surgery, patients who are critically ill, are essentially being left here, nobody to care for them," Gupta said.

Sandra Pierre, a Haitian who has been helping at the makeshift hospital, said the medical staff took most of the supplies with them.

"All the doctors, all the nurses are gone," she said. "They are expected to be back tomorrow. They had no plan on leaving tonight. It was an order that came suddenly."

She told Gupta, "It's just you."

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who led relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina in 2005, said the evacuation of the clinic's medical staff was unforgivable.

"Search and rescue must trump security," Honoré said. "I've never seen anything like this before in my life. They need to man up and get back in there."

Honoré drew parallels between the tragedy in New Orleans, Louisiana, and in Port-au-Prince. But even in the chaos of Katrina, he said, he had never seen medical staff walk away.

"I find this astonishing these doctors left," he said. "People are scared of the poor."

A salute to Sanjay Gupta whose heroics put to shame a spineless UN and Belgian medical team.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by mg1942

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americ...nts/index.html








A salute to Sanjay Gupta whose heroics put to shame a spineless UN and Belgian medical team.

The bolded part is true on many situations not just the Haitian earthquake disaster...

[Xellos-_^]

i wouldn't actually blame the belgian team. it is easy for us armchair generals to say they should have stay without actually knowing what it was like over there. But the UN really do have to take responsibility for this, how in the world can they not provide security for something like this or at least help evacuate the wounded.

ps. the canadian team pull out earlier with thier security which is what prompted the belgian team to ask the UN for security.

[FateAnomaly]

I don't see how the medical teams should be blamed. They got reasons to believe that they lives could be in danger. They are already doing more than what armchairs critics are doing.

If i have to put the blame, i will put it on the troublemaking Haitians themselves. If even they don't help their fellow Haitians, why should they expect help from others.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by FateAnomaly

I don't see how the medical teams should be blamed. They got reasons to believe that they lives could be in danger. They are already doing more than what armchairs critics are doing.

If i have to put the blame, i will put it on the troublemaking Haitians themselves. If even they don't help their fellow Haitians, why should they expect help from others.

you can't blame the haitians either, while the medical believed they might be in danger there were no riots that night and considering the circumstance it was pretty peaceful. again it comes down to the UN being unable to provided the security the medical team feel they need.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

Ah yes, short sellers, the worst kind of "investors" ever. Making a profit, and not even contributing to the economic cycle; fuck yea, totally helpful.

It... depends. They do serve a purpose in capitalism and in a market economy, but like all things and regardless of a right/left/conservative/liberal view, they can get out of hand.

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

I don't think that China is going to burst anytime soon, like India, its an economic powerhouse, and is progressively improving quickly, but possessing a large population (And eventually a large highly qualified and highly educated population) it's not by any means liable to some risks other countries may have (Like how all of the skilled workers in Canada moving down South). It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Given its population, China's overall education level can definitely go up, but it does already have a fairly large number of university graduates. More are coming out of the universities as well, which plays a part in keeping salaries under control, but would also mean more underemployment as well.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

you can't blame the haitians either, while the medical believed they might be in danger there were no riots that night and considering the circumstance it was pretty peaceful. again it comes down to the UN being unable to provided the security the medical team feel they need.

Actually, from where are these security personnel being drawn, and how many is on the ground serving? Under what mandate do they operate also?

The UN does not have its own peacekeepers that I know of, and have to ask countries for volunteers. Some of those countries also have their own policies under which their people have to follow - even assuming that they are under UN command, which may not be the case.

The UN isn't all powerful; it's stronger than the League of Nations, IMHO, but that isn't saying much.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

Actually, from where are these security personnel being drawn, and how many is on the ground serving? Under what mandate do they operate also?

The UN does not have its own peacekeepers that I know of, and have to ask countries for volunteers. Some of those countries also have their own policies under which their people have to follow - even assuming that they are under UN command, which may not be the case.

The UN isn't all powerful; it's stronger than the League of Nations, IMHO, but that isn't saying much.

there were 9000 un peacekeeper operating in haiti at the time of the earthquake. the un force suffer 46 losses due to the earthquake. i would think they could have spare a hundred troops to protect the medical team.
of course that is assuming the peacekeeper were issue real guns with real bullets unlike the ones in srebrenica who were told to stop the serbs with empty guns and goodwill. Even if the UN didn't have enough the least they could have done was evacuate some of the more serious patience instead of leaving them all there.

[TinyRedLeaf]

JAL goes bankrupt

Tokyo (Jan 19): Japan Airlines (JAL) filed for bankruptcy today in one of the nation's largest corporate failures, entering a restructuring from which it seeks to emerge leaner, smarter and free of crippling debt.

Asia's biggest carrier by revenue, staggering under a US$25.6-billion debt mountain, applied for protection from creditors under the Corporate Rehabilitation Law — Japan's version of Chapter 11 — with the Tokyo District Court.

The airline will slash nearly 16,000 jobs, cut routes and shift to more fuel-efficient aircraft as part of its restructuring. Government cash will keep JAL's planes in the air during the reorganisation.

There was no immediate word on the outcome of a fierce tug-of-war between Delta Air Lines and American Airlines for a slice of JAL's business. Despite its woes, the airline's access to Asia is a mouth-watering prize for foreign airlines.

The Enterprise Turnaround Initiative Corporation, a state-backed turnaround agency, said it will assist with the reorganisation and pledged to offer the money-losing airline "sufficient funding" during the process. The transport ministry also said in a statement the government would offer "necessary support".

The Tokyo Stock Exchange will remove JAL shares from the exchange on Feb 20. The shares, which have lost more than 90 per cent of its value in the past week, tumbled another 40 per cent today to 3 yen (US$0.03) at one point. It finished flat at 5 yen.

The company is now essentially worthless, with a market capitalisation of about 13.7 billion yen — the price of one Boeing 787 jet.

- ASSOCIATED PRESS

A touch of Zen to save JAL?

Tokyo (Jan 19): The man chosen to spearhead the daunting task of rebuilding Japan Airlines (JAL) is a respected entrepreneur, management guru and ordained Buddhist monk who admits he is a novice in the airline business.

Mr Kazuo Inamori, who turns 78 this month, is being parachuted into JAL's cockpit by the government to replace Mr Haruka Nishimatsu, who is set to step down as chief executive after failing to halt JAL's financial tailspin. "I'm a complete amateur about the transport industry," Mr Inamori told reporters last week after accepting the job, adding: "I would do my best."

Mr Inamori is one of Japan's most well-respected business executives, having founded both electronics maker Kyocera, and a company that later became part of KDDI, now Japan's No.2 telecommunications company. He is feted as a champion of deregulation and a philanthropist who entered the Buddhist priesthood at a temple in Kyoto in 1997 after retirement.

The Kyocera founder created his own "amoeba management" theory whereby each unit of a company makes its own plans under the guidance of an "amoeba leader". Members of the unit pool their knowledge and effort to achieve business targets, giving all employees an active role.

In one of his books, Respect the Divine and Love People, Inamori said his management philosophy is based on the many obstacles he has overcome. "In both my professional and personal life, I have struggled with many dead-end situations which caused me endless agony," he wrote, according to excerpts on his website.

"In those difficult circumstances, I would always go back to the fundamentals and ask myself, 'What is the right thing to do as a human being?' Everything I do in my work is based upon this fundamental principle."

Mr Inamori is Japan's 28th richest person today, with an estimated wealth of US$920 million, according to the Forbes Rich List.

- AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

[andyjay729]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The minister of helping poor countries develop. And/or taking advantage of them, as the case may be.

I do think the French are worthy of a round of applause at this point, since they actually agreed to cancel all of Haiti's many, many debts to them. This is especially significant since, of course, Haiti was once a French slave colony. For over a century after independence the Haitians were actually obliged to (ahem) pay back the lost slavery revenues to France. That's part of the reason Haiti and many other 3rd world ex-colonies are so dirt poor.

I'm a bit cynical about reparations for slavery (since the original participants are long since dead, and of course not all whites are descended from slaveowners; add to that, say, a Polish-Swedish-whatever-American marrying into a family that may have owned slaves at some point in the distant past). But in this case, the money was owed to a still-existent entity, the French state. Say what you will, the French here are showing a very strong sense of goodwill, and the rest of the world would do well to emulate them in this crisis.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by mg1942

10 reasons why the Massachusetts Senate race is very, very important

This is by far the most important single ballot I'll ever cast in my life. The outcome of most elections in Massachusetts is usually a foregone conclusion. We have had periods recently where the Republicans held the governorship, but the legislature has been solidly Democratic for decades, and our Congressional delegation has no Republicans now as well.

Spoiler for campaign analysis:

I have voted in the Republican primaries from time to time because my vote had a greater strategic value in those races (in MA "unenrolled" voters can choose to vote in either party's primary). But as a left-leaning independent, I usually vote for the Democrats in general elections.

The Democratic senatorial candidate in today's election is the state's Attorney General. She had a pretty easy time in the primary because she was the only candidate in the race holding a state-wide office. In "special" elections like that one and the one today, organization is key. Turnout is usually low, even lower than in "off-year" elections like the one that will take place this fall. Those organizational advantages may also help Ms. Coakley in her quest to keep Ted Kennedy's seat safe for the Democrats and maintain the 60-vote Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate.

On the Republican side we have one of the Republican state senators running for the seat. Until the New Year few observers gave him much of a chance in "blue" Massachusetts. Then the outside money started flowing in. Once the race was framed as referendum on the Democrats in Washington, and the pivotal role of this Senate seat became known, conservative forces raised millions of dollars to buy advertising in support of the Republican, Mr. Brown. The Democrats naturally followed suit. I wouldn't be surprised if this election sets records for campaign spending per capita. (A recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance made it even easier for advocacy groups to support candidates explicitly.)

It's snowing in most of Massachusetts today, which is traditionally seen as problematic for the Democrats because their vote is drawn from less wealthy and less well-educated population groups who vote at lower rates than richer, better-educated people. Young voters pose additional problems. Though they turned out in droves in November, 2008, to vote for Obama, whether they'll vote today is much more in doubt. On average age is positively correlated with voting turnout. We have a lot of college students in my state; they could play an important role in today's election.

Despite the weather, the local media is reporting very high turnout rates, and despite the conventional wisdom, higher turnout might actually benefit Mr. Brown. There's a body of literature on voting behavior that suggests people with negative motivations are more likely to show up at the polls than people with more positive attitudes. A lot of support for Brown reflects the "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more" perspective. Those people are going to vote; whether the Democrats who took a more complacent view of this election will show up at the polls is, in my mind, somewhat less predictable.

A note to our friends in other parts of the world. You'll notice that I spent a lot of time talking about turnout, which is often not a major issue in other democracies. That's because Americans are not automatically registered to vote in this country, and because the parties ties to social groups are much weaker. We don't have parties with strong class, religious, or ethnic identities, with the key exception of blacks' allegiance to the Democrats. Cross-national studies of voting turnout show that countries with universal registration and strong linkages between parties and groups have higher and more consistent rates of voting. In American elections, mobilization of voters is one the most critical factors in determining the final outcome.

Update: The MA official responsible for elections estimates that 40% of registered voters will turn out today. Since about one in four people is not registered, that means this election will be determined by the votes of just 30% of the age-eligible citizens of Massachusetts.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

JAL goes bankrupt

So his profit motive, does it come tagged with a "to create jobs" and "help grow the economy and people of the land"? Interesting, it is a pity most financiers don't think like him if so.

It is going to be tough for him. What he needs now is some luck and strategy instead of downsizing. I would suggest that he break the fleet up into solely "business", "economy" and "budget" classes while restructuring the company using his "amoeba" strategy. He doesn't have much time, but he can target SEA with his "budget" classes to earn some cash and shore up the airlines reputation. Add an English version website and fight Tiger Airways for the Asian market before hitting out to the more exotic places like Hawaii or Maldives, which should be the last of the priorities. Create links to China's economic centres like HK, Shanghai and Beijing with the "business" class at more cost AND time effective packages. Continue doing so until the reputation is partially restored, then launch a share sellout to secure investments and credit to pull itself out of debt and bankruptcy.

This isn't easy, one screw up, and people will have to swim to go to the next winter Comiket.

Originally Posted by FateAnomaly

I don't see how the medical teams should be blamed. They got reasons to believe that they lives could be in danger. They are already doing more than what armchairs critics are doing.

If i have to put the blame, i will put it on the troublemaking Haitians themselves. If even they don't help their fellow Haitians, why should they expect help from others.

Has anyone read an application form to be a U.N medical worker? I will share a little something : a couple of the lines under the "I fully understand to the following" disclaimer is "My life will be at risk of infection of BTDs"* and "violence/violent acts in civil unrest"*. If you are part of a government organisation (i.e military) it will also include "I declare myself to willingly serve...." at the end.

The U.N doesn't just take in any TD/H. Those guys SIGNED these sort of forms and now they want to pull out. It is bloody ridiculous that their dedication is just limited to gain brownie points to go to their "heaven" or bolster their ego/reputation.

Doing good deeds is a choice, but dropping out halfway is as good as faking the intention in the first place. As much as it is a waste of time and effort, it is downright pathetic to declare that your guts have been ruptured at a certain point when your personal safety, which is supposed to be at risk anytime, is in somewhat dire straits.

As much as I want to help out physically, I lack the professional certification and training to do so (other than carrying a firearm and walking around acting cool). What is the point of sending those pieces of paper called money when there there isn't enough people to put it into use there?

P.S I came from a place which sent only $50,000 and 8 idealists who have no f***ing idea what they are going to get themselves into. Make a guess.

* - subsections titles

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

This is by far the most important single ballot I'll ever cast in my life. The outcome of most elections in Massachusetts is usually a foregone conclusion. We have had periods recently where the Republicans held the governorship, but the legislature has been solidly Democratic for decades, and our Congressional delegation has no Republicans now as well.

Spoiler for campaign analysis:

I have voted in the Republican primaries from time to time because my vote had a greater strategic value in those races (in MA "unenrolled" voters can choose to vote in either party's primary). But as a left-leaning independent, I usually vote for the Democrats in general elections.

The Democratic senatorial candidate in today's election is the state's Attorney General. She had a pretty easy time in the primary because she was the only candidate in the race holding a state-wide office. In "special" elections like that one and the one today, organization is key. Turnout is usually low, even lower than in "off-year" elections like the one that will take place this fall. Those organizational advantages may also help Ms. Coakley in her quest to keep Ted Kennedy's seat safe for the Democrats and maintain the 60-vote Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate.

On the Republican side we have one of the Republican state senators running for the seat. Until the New Year few observers gave him much of a chance in "blue" Massachusetts. Then the outside money started flowing in. Once the race was framed as referendum on the Democrats in Washington, and the pivotal role of this Senate seat became known, conservative forces raised millions of dollars to buy advertising in support of the Republican, Mr. Brown. The Democrats naturally followed suit. I wouldn't be surprised if this election sets records for campaign spending per capita. (A recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance made it even easier for advocacy groups to support candidates explicitly.)

It's snowing in most of Massachusetts today, which is traditionally seen as problematic for the Democrats because their vote is drawn from less wealthy and less well-educated population groups who vote at lower rates than richer, better-educated people. Young voters pose additional problems. Though they turned out in droves in November, 2008, to vote for Obama, whether they'll vote today is much more in doubt. On average age is positively correlated with voting turnout. We have a lot of college students in my state; they could play an important role in today's election.

Despite the weather, the local media is reporting very high turnout rates, and despite the conventional wisdom, higher turnout might actually benefit Mr. Brown. There's a body of literature on voting behavior that suggests people with negative motivations are more likely to show up at the polls than people with more positive attitudes. A lot of support for Brown reflects the "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more" perspective. Those people are going to vote; whether the Democrats who took a more complacent view of this election will show up at the polls is, in my mind, somewhat less predictable.

A note to our friends in other parts of the world. You'll notice that I spent a lot of time talking about turnout, which is often not a major issue in other democracies. That's because Americans are not automatically registered to vote in this country, and because the parties ties to social groups are much weaker. We don't have parties with strong class, religious, or ethnic identities, with the key exception of blacks' allegiance to the Democrats. Cross-national studies of voting turnout show that countries with universal registration and strong linkages between parties and groups have higher and more consistent rates of voting. In American elections, mobilization of voters is one the most critical factors in determining the final outcome.

Update: The MA official responsible for elections estimates that 40% of registered voters will turn out today. Since about one in four people is not registered, that means this election will be determined by the votes of just 30% of the age-eligible citizens of Massachusetts.

This is one special election I wished I was a resident of MA. I would vote for Brown in a heartbeat.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by mg1942

10 reasons why the Massachusetts Senate race is very, very important

Spoiler for :

It's almost impossible to overstate the political significance of tomorrow's Massachusetts Senate election. Here are ten reasons why the election is so important nationally:

1. Massachusetts is one of the most Democratic states in the nation.
It's the only state that voted for George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972 and it hasn't elected a Republican senator since 1972. Its entire congressional delegation is Democratic. A GOP win would shock the liberal Democratic establishment that dismissed the 2009 gubernatorial setbacks in Virginia and New Jersey as mere flukes.

2. Health-care reform is at stake.
A victory for Scott Brown would deprive the Democrats of the 60 votes they need to push their brand of health-care reform through the Senate without any Republican support. That would be a huge defeat for President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. No way to spin that one.

3. Democrat-only legislative power would come to an end.
If Senate Democrats were to lose in Massachusetts, they'd lose their tenuous 60-seat majority needed to push forward legislation without bipartisan support. That means that moderate Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine would instantly become two of the most powerful people on Capitol Hill. One way or another, the Obama agenda would have to be retooled or scaled back.

4. This is the "Kennedy" seat.
For six decades, this particular Massachusetts Senate seat has been represented by Jack Kennedy, Ted Kennedy or a family designee (on a temporary basis). The symbolism of Republicans seizing the "Kennedy seat" is huge.

5. This is where the Boston Tea Party took place.
New England "patriots" rebelled against high taxes by dumping tea into Boston Harbor some 235 years ago. Now, the new generation of "Tea Party patriots" is hoping to dump candidates (Democrat and Republican) who raise taxes and increase federal spending. Again, a big symbolic thing.

6. This is a test of the power of political independents.
Fewer than one in eight Massachusetts voters admits to being a Republican. So GOP nominee Brown couldn't come close to victory without carrying independent voters by a wide margin and chipping away at the Democratic base. That's terrible news for Democrats looking ahead. If independents continue to flee the Democratic Party -- as they did in New Jersey and Virginia last year -- the midterm elections could be an absolute disaster for the ruling party.

7. It's a good indicator of voters' desire for divided government.
Even in Massachusetts, many voters want to send a message to Democrats in DC: One-party government is not a good idea. A Brown win -- or even a photo finish -- would tell us that even some Democrats want a limit on the power of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

8. It could give a jump start to GOP recruiting efforts in other states.
One of the keys to the Republican takeover of Congress is 1994 was a superb recruiting effort that enlisted big-name challengers to Democratic incumbents. If Brown wins in Massachusetts, the Texans atop the GOP congressional campaign efforts -- John Cornyn in the Senate and Pete Sessions in the House -- probably would have recruits lining up outside their offices to take on Democratic incumbents.

9. It's proof that Republicans don't have to be moderates to win on Democratic turf.
Conventional wisdom holds that Republicans need to recruit moderate candidates to win elections in the North and Midwest. But Scott Brown is an unapologetic conservative. If he can win (or come close) in Massachusetts, it sends a message that conservative Republicans can play ball in "blue" America.

10. It would be a personal and political repudiation of President Obama.
The president upped the political ante yesterday by flying to Boston for a rally with Democrat Martha Coakley. He told voters just how important her election was to him. By inserting himself into the race, Obama raised the stakes: If Massachusetts voters reject his personal appeal, it's a sign that the president's (remaining) personal popularity is not necessarily transferable to endangered Democrats.

this by far some of the worst political analysis based on bi partisan spite. Really if you think that the republicans will do a better job than the democrats I ask you to take a long hard look at the previous 8 years we had under bush. In the end two parties or one parties it's all the same since both are so heavily controlled by the lobbies it doesn't even really matter who is in control at this point. Also if you have seen the campaign ads for Brown their pretty horrendous. What purpose does it serve to bring out the fact that you own a truck? it's sole purpose is to further bi partisanism through stereotypes and implied connotations when in fact we should be voting for people based on their record and their actions not the cars they drive.

This is the kind of thinking that will bury America, pick the best not the one who looks most like you, maybe we should go back to meritocracy instead of the spoils because without merit we have these people corrupted by special interests and reelection that nothing really is solved and instead we get half assed everything.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

this by far some of the worst political analysis based on bi partisan spite.

Actually it's "partisan spite." "Bi-partisanism" refers to cross-party cooperation on issues, which is but a dream since the Republicans have decided to obstruct on any issue that comes before them.

I remember the days when there were liberal Republicans and conservative, often racist, Democrats. I had no problem supporting Republicans like Ed Brooke, Leverett Saltonstall, or Frank Sargent. In 1980 I worked on behalf of John Anderson in his effort to secure the Republican presidential nomination. Today there are no Republicans either in Massachusetts or nationally that look anything like these men. Maine's senators come closest, but I don't think Olympia Snowe will be voting in favor of health insurance reform or new financial regulation if they make it to the floor of the Senate.

In 1965, 13 of the 32 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the final legislation establishing Medicare. Today that number would be zero.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

This is one special election I wished I was a resident of MA. I would vote for Brown in a heartbeat.

Out of curiosity, would you vote for Brown (as a hypothetical MA representative) based on what he could do for your state? Or, because you want to break a House majority (and other non-state issues), etc? Or, simply because you might (hypothetically) dislike the seemingly ineffective (definitely ineffectual) Coakley?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by james0246

Out of curiosity, would you vote for Brown (as a hypothetical MA representative) based on what he could do for your state? Or, because you want to break a House majority (and other non-state issues), etc? Or, simply because you might (hypothetically) dislike the seemingly ineffective (definitely ineffectual) Coakley?

if it was me this would be it. this was Coakley race to lose and should never have gone this far. either she took the voters for granted or she is a complete idiot. Either is enough for me to vote the other guy.

besides which i thought Clinton did pretty well with a republican control congress. Much better then when he had a democratic control congress. of course i consider myself a moderate, form a liberal progress point of view it probably didn't look that good.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Actually it's "partisan spite." "Bi-partisanism" refers to cross-party cooperation on issues, which is but a dream since the Republicans have decided to obstruct on any issue that comes before them.

I remember the days when there were liberal Republicans and conservative, often racist, Democrats. I had no problem supporting Republicans like Ed Brooke, Leverett Saltonstall, or Frank Sargent. In 1980 I worked on behalf of John Anderson in his effort to secure the Republican presidential nomination. Today there are no Republicans either in Massachusetts or nationally that look anything like these men. Maine's senators come closest, but I don't think Olympia Snowe will be voting in favor of health insurance reform or new financial regulation if they make it to the floor of the Senate.

In 1965, 13 of the 32 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the final legislation establishing Medicare. Today that number would be zero.

yarp, my bad, thinking during class is not my forte but the sad fact is even with these sharp party lines, both parties are controlled by the lobbies not the constituents and as long as there is no long time goal to making america great we can easily see the US slide into a subserviant role much like what the current EU is like. Corporate profits should not be the driving force of political agenda's, developing national assets that further our status as a great nation should be more important, fighting frivolous wars against people who will always seek our destruction is stupid, to think of the hubris the american military has toward afghanistan is appalling. The soviets couldn't win, how can we? This is probably the one time I would call for more isolationist tendencies due to the outrageous trade defict and the fact that the homeland is suffereing due to all these wars.

[Kamui4356]

I don't care what any of the polls say was the real issue here. I'm convinced that in the end Coakley will lose this election for one reason and one reason alone, she called Curt Schilling a Yankee fan. Granted most people will probably remember him more for his time with the Phillies than the last few seasons of his career with the Red Socks, but those people aren't Red Socks fans. For Red Socks fans, calling a pitcher that helped them win their first world series in 80 some years a Yankee fan would be like someone calling Reagen a communist to many neo-cons. Sure, people might not admit that's the real reason they won't vote for her, but it is and nothing will convince me otherwise.