In stunning upset, Brown tops Coakley for Senate seat

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

In stunning upset, Brown tops Coakley for Senate seat

By Matt Viser and Andrea Estes (http://search.boston.com/local/Search.do?s.sm.query=Matt+Viser+and+Andrea+Estes&camp=localsearch:on:byline:art)
Globe Staff / January 19, 2010

Republican Scott Brown tonight pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Massachusetts political history, defeating Democrat Martha Coakley to become the state’s next United States senator and potentially derailing President Obama’s hopes for a health care overhaul.

The victory caps a dramatic surge in recent days as Brown, a state lawmaker from Wrentham once thought to have little chance of beating a popular attorney general, roared ahead of Coakley to become the first Republican senator elected from Massachusetts since 1972.

With 73 percent of precincts reporting, Brown had 53 percent and Coakley had 46 percent.

In a race that became the center of national attention, Brown’s win is widely seen as a vote against the president’s agenda from one of the most reliably Democratic states. And in a particularly ironic twist, Brown, in succeeding Edward M. Kennedy -- the late liberal lion who deemed health care “the cause of my life’’ -- may well be the 41st vote to prevent the Democratic-led plan from moving forward.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

This, ladies and gentlemen... is huge.

It's like the Earth has shifted on its axis. A non-Kennedy non-democrat elected in Mass for the first time since 1953. 1953.

And the democrat didn't just lose, but lost by (at this writing) a seven point margin. In electoral terms, that is a drubbing. That's like getting a wedgie and a swirlie at the same time.

Do you suppose they're paying attention in the White House tonight? Heh.

I think the message sent tonight is "Keep the change". :)

[WashingtonBay]

It's really something... and is a clear message, no matter how they spin it.

[WashingtonBoy]

:banana: :happydance: :banana: :happydance: :banana: :happydance:

Now, lets go Kill the Bill!

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I haven't actually heard this guy speak much. Watching the victory speech now. I really like this guy.

[mare]

I'm certainly encouraged that at least this HCR won't pass.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

"In wartime, we should be sending to our enemy weapons to destroy them, not lawyers to defend them."

Woah.

Preach it, Brother.

[Ol Man River]

I'm certainly encouraged that at least this HCR won't pass.

unless the democrats act more irresponsible than they have and get
the house to accept the senate version. If they do, it will go
to BAMA for signing. Will not be sent back to the senate for voting on.

Bama wants this HCR before the state of the union address.
So will have to wait and see how many Democrats in the house
want to take a chance on being re-elected.

[JackieB]

I just hope that the issue of access to affordable health insurance doesn't simply get tabled the way it has for the past 20 years whenever it comes up.

My wife and I are both self-employed, pay a ton for our health insurance (it's the second largest expense behind taxes) and it's going to increase next year at age 50 and again at age 55. And Blue Cross of Michigan would like to charge a lot more, but there are some state regulations that help keep it "affordable".

So if it's opening up the state borders to more competition, tort reform, whatever, I just hope it doesn't get swept back under the rug. That's been my honest observation of the situation for two decades. And it's easy to understand why politicians don't want to go there since it's so volatile, but we need them to do so for us.

[westmanfarrier]

Jackie B - have you researched HSA plans?

HSA was the answer for me, and a tax free savings vehicle at the same time.

[gabhainn]

:banana: :happydance: :banana: :happydance: :banana: :happydance:

Now, lets go Kill the Bill!

I'm certainly encouraged that at least this HCR won't pass.
Their goal is to bring it to a vote before he is seated, their last ditch effort is to ramrod a Barney Frank led bill to outlaw filibuster...............Kevin

[HoustonFarrier]

And it's easy to understand why politicians don't want to go there since it's so volatile, but we need them to do so for us.

No Jackie...you'll get so much more if you do for yourself !!!!! If you are going to rely on politicians and/or govt to solve your problem, you will end up with even MORE problems...and less $$$ in your pocket.

Steve

[JackieB]

No Jackie...you'll get so much more if you do for yourself !!!!! If you are going to rely on politicians and/or govt to solve your problem, you will end up with even MORE problems...and less $$$ in your pocket.

Steve

I am doing for myself, Steve. We pay 100% of our premiums, will pay 100% of our prescriptions (when I end COBRA in May), and will have a $5,000 deductible (also when COBRA ends in May).

But anyone who understands Business 101 knows that insurance companies would really only like to insure healthy people if possible. A single serious illness with one person can wipe out decades of premiums paid by a whole bunch of others.

Also, it's a fact that people tend to become a higher risk to insurance companies as they get older. So, the companies would prefer to raise premiums A LOT when patients get to 50+.

So, we do need a regulatory framework for insurance companies to follow. I am totally unconvinced that I could obtain health insurance at premiums I could consider paying if the markets were simply left alone with no regulations.

Insurance companies aren't in business to insure everyone. They are in business to return a profit to their shareholders by insuring those individuals who are likely to pay more in premiums than they will need in benefits. No problem there. That's good business sense.

However, it would make even more business sense if they could take the premiums that an individual pays in his/her 20's, 30's, 40's, but then get rid of that policy holder when he/she is over 50 (or maybe 55).

[MyMia]

JackieB, do you really think that the government taking over the insurance industry will make for affordable premiums and good coverage? The way I see it, they'll raise the rates on the insurance companies. Who pays for that? Those of us who are paying the premiums. If this health care reform goes through, insurance premiums will go through the roof. So will your taxes, to pay for the universal coverage.

[HoustonFarrier]

So, we do need a regulatory framework for insurance companies to follow. I am totally unconvinced that I could obtain health insurance at premiums I could consider paying if the markets were simply left alone with no regulations.

I think just taking away state boundaries will help along way. My daughter, her fiancee and her baby are on their own health insurance program here in Texas, and they can afford it with only one income. My daughter is a type I diabetic, so it's not like there isn't a pre-existing condition.

I don't see a need to totally re-write the entire system as the Dems want to do. I've used this analogy many times....when your car has a bad spark plug, you don't replace the entire engine....you fix what is wrong.

Steve

[JackieB]

JackieB, do you really think that the government taking over the insurance industry will make for affordable premiums and good coverage?

I never asked for a government plan. All I want is "affordable" access to health insurance. For me, affordable means about $8,000 a year or so for my wife and I. Still a heck of a lot of money, but it's important to us and we're willing to pay that much.

Right now, I'm able to get a plan for about that much in premiums and out-of-pocket annual expenses. However, our premiums go up all the time and will go up a lot in another year (age 50) and then again at 55. We can't afford too much more in annual costs, that's for sure.

Steve, I hope you are right about removing state boundaries. I wish they would do that tomorrow, because I know that Texas has a good plan (I read about it).

So back to my original statement. I understand that this election of Scott Brown will likely bring the healtcare reform bills to a halt. I'd prefer that this be addressed in a bipartisan manner anyway. I just hope it doesn't get pushed aside again.

[shewasmyshadow]

I liked the guy's speech as well. This guy is worth voting for. So glad he made it in.

I have a good friend who's an MD and his wife is an attorney. They say Health Care needs help, but not from the angle it's being chopped at from. Did you know that doctors pay something like $150K in malpractice insurance a year? And that's in some tiny town up in northern MN. Think about what it must cost in California and places like that! Something needs to be done about people suing the doctors left and right. If the doctors and hospitals could lower their insurance costs, then our health care in general would cost a whole lot less.

[natisha]

Barry blamed the loss on Bush, saying Americans are angry over the last 8 years or some such 'stuff'. He needs a new slogan.

[JackieB]

Barry blamed the loss on Bush, saying Americans are angry over the last 8 years or some such 'stuff'. He needs a new slogan.

I don't care for the name "Barry" (every president deserves to be called "President..."), but I agree with you entirely on the comment. It's getting old blaming things on the previous administration. I had the same thought when I read the quote, Natisha.

[Ol Man River]

If the doctors and hospitals could lower their insurance costs, then our health care in general would cost a whole lot less.



If the dr.s and hospitals got their malpractice insurance cost lowered
they are not going to volunteer to lower the price of an office call
and the hospitals are not going to lower the price of tests or in patient
services.

They will just pocket the difference and have a greater profit.



Ah to be young and innocent again.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Nonsense. Doctors and insurance companies need to compete for business just like everybody else. It's time we let them. Every single problem with medicine and medical finance is because of government regulation. It's easy to fix.

[JackieB]

Nonsense. Doctors and insurance companies need to compete for business just like everybody else. It's time we let them. Every single problem with medicine and medical finance is because of government regulation. It's easy to fix.

You're overlooking a critical point, RD. Once patients get to 50-55 years of age, their medical costs start to increase dramatically. This isn't just hypothetical - do some research and you'll see. Or, I can probably dig it up for you if you wish. The fact that I work hard to stay healthy doesn't mean that much. Statistically speaking, I'm a much higher risk to them than I have been for the past three decades.

Consequently, the insurance companies (all of them) typically only want business from this group if the premiums are super-high ($1500 a month or so would be a good place to start).

In markets where there aren't regulations requiring insurance companies to sell policies to older customers, healthcare insurance is often either completely unobtainable, or super-expensive. I can provide you proof of this as well if you wish.

You're usually very wise, but I think something is clouding your judgment on this issue. It's a situation where what makes good business sense (don't insure older Americans) doesn't meet the need. Unfettered competition isn't going to change that.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

There's also good money to be made insuring people of all ages and risks. Is there good money being made by auto insurers on policies for high-risk drivers? You bet there is. Is it expensive? Of course it is. And rightfully so. But it's less expensive that it would be if it were managed and regulated like health care.

But on your point... older people (and I'm getting closer all the time myself) have more health risks than younger people. Of course. But who should be paying for that risk? Older people also have most of the accumulated wealth in this country. They're people at the end of their careers and have savings and homes and investments built up over a lifetime. Not every one-- I know that-- but most. Young healthy people have less risk, and also don't have any money. They're at the beginning of their careers, are putting themselves in debt with mortgages and cars and whatnot. They're normally pretty healthy so their health care *should* be less expensive.

Why should low-risk drivers be put in the same pool with high-risk drivers? Seems awfully unfair. That's because it is awfully unfair.

Why should the grandson be in the same risk pool as grandpa? How is it fair that he has to pay more, so that grandpa doesn't have to cash in his stocks, bonds, and coin collections? Who should rightly pay? The people that get the services... or the people that don't get the services? The good driver or the dangerous driver?

It's important to keep in mind that medicine is just like any other service that we use in life. It's no more or less intrinsically important than food, water, a home, a car, boats, homeowners insurance or whatever. We all prioritize the things that are valuable to us, but NONE of those things become a right merely because we think it is important. We only have a right to the things we've paid for. Until then no one has a right to the labor or the property of another. That requires (or rather defines) slavery.

[Remali]

Sheesh.... and how about that statement Brown made about his daughters on TV..... yeah, we need a hundred more like him..... :rolleyes:

[JackieB]

There's also good money to be made insuring people of all ages and risks.....

Good argument here (all of it, not just what I quoted). I accept it in its entirety.

I do agree that I should pay more than I did when I was in my 20's and 30's, I just hope that I can get affordable access.

The AARP can help people like me, too. I can hardly believe that me, the diehard rocker, is saying this, but it's true. I have a saying that I have been fond of for going on 20 years now - "The AARP drives me crazy with their tenacious lobbying for older Americans. And they will continue to aggravate me - until I turn 50 and can join." :)

I will say that I'm glad that it looks like this healthcare debate will have to be resolved in a bipartisan fashion. Too much power is generally a corrupting influence on anyone who has it. I didn't like it when the Democrats were thumbing their noses at the Republicans over the summer. It's the same type of behavior that I didn't like about Tom Delay.

[natisha]

Sheesh.... and how about that statement Brown made about his daughters on TV..... yeah, we need a hundred more like him..... :rolleyes: I missed it. What did he say?

[Tiz]

Oh, it was horrible, simply horrible. Prepare yourself, Natisha.
YouTube- Scott Brown Introduces His Daughters to the Nation: "Yes, They're Both Available"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8E1jvL)

[JackieB]

He just said that his daughters are available. Here is a link http://www.news.com.au/world/daughter-mortified-by-senator-scott-browns-gaffe/story-e6frfkyi-1225822378010

It undoubtedly was mortifying to his daughters, but I can see a father doing something like that.

[natisha]

I don't care for the name "Barry" (every president deserves to be called "President..."), but I agree with you entirely on the comment. It's getting old blaming things on the previous administration. I had the same thought when I read the quote, Natisha. Apparently he didn't care for the name either ;) For the record-when I write complaint/protest/opinion letters I refer to him as President. So I'm not always bad :p :)

[JackieB]

So I'm not always bad :p :)

I know that. :)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Oh, it was horrible, simply horrible. Prepare yourself, Natisha.
[...] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8E1jvL)


I thought it was a little lame, but cute.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Apparently he didn't care for the name either ;) For the record-when I write complaint/protest/opinion letters I refer to him as President. So I'm not always bad :p :)

I prefer "Pres__ent" myself. :innocent:

But seriously, I use the formal and correct title when the situation calls for it. Like in the military: you have to salute even if the superior is a slimeball, but you're saluting the uniform-- not the man. The President is an office, not a man.

[natisha]

Oh, it was horrible, simply horrible. Prepare yourself, Natisha.
YouTube- Scott Brown Introduces His Daughters to the Nation: "Yes, They're Both Available" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8E1jvL)
Personally I don't care for speeches that are comedy skits, but hey, anything that would help me get a date I'm all for.

[WashingtonBay]

He just said that his daughters are available. Here is a link http://www.news.com.au/world/daughter-mortified-by-senator-scott-browns-gaffe/story-e6frfkyi-1225822378010

It undoubtedly was mortifying to his daughters, but I can see a father doing something like that.

My first thought it was the loose tongue risk you take when you kick back a couple toasts before the acceptance speech. :cool:

[Remali]

Perhaps a few too many...?! lmao.

[Ol Man River]

maybe a couple of the Kennedy boys will take him up on
his statement,

name name Brown Kennedy. kind a has a ring to it huh.

[Tiz]

Well, though his joking about his daughters isn't as elegant as a snockered Uncle Teddy padding around in his underwear, while his nephew entertains a female guest, I thought it was kind of endearing. And really, who could ever match the class of his predecessor? That's just a bridge too far.

[natisha]

Well, though his joking about his daughters isn't as elegant as a snockered Uncle Teddy padding around in his underwear, while his nephew entertains a female guest, I thought it was kind of endearing. And really, who could ever match the class of his predecessor? That's just a bridge too far. Or too short & narrow

[Tiz]

With no guard rail.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

With no guard rail.

No... I think there was a guard rail on the bridge, he just missed it. :doh:

[Tiz]

http://photos.upi.com/topics-The-site-of-the-Chappaquiddick-incident-involving-Sen-Ted-Kennedy-and-Mary-Jo-Kopechne/b5627b58269d3a7d8c8f84ae7351f26d/M_8.jpg
The site of the Chappaquiddick incident involving Sen. Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne

Aerial view of the Chappaquiddick Bridge, site of the Chappaquiddick incident. The Chappaquiddick incident refers to the circumstances surrounding the 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a former staff member in Senator Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts was driving a car with Kopechne as his passenger when the Senator drove off Dike Bridge into the channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard. The Senator swam to safety, but Kopechne died in the car. Kennedy pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended sentence of two months in jail. The incident became a national scandal and may have affected the Senator's decision not to run for President in 1972. Ted Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island, adjoining Martha's Vineyard. The party was a reunion for campaign workers who had served in his brother Robert's 1968 presidential campaign. Kennedy drove away with party guest Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger in his mother's 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88. According to Kennedy, he made a wrong turn onto an unlit dirt road that led to Dike Bridge (also spelled Dyke Bridge); a wooden bridge angled obliquely to the road with no guardrail, and drove over its side. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and came to rest upside down underwater. Kennedy was able to swim free of the vehicle, but Kopechne was not. Kennedy claims he tried to swim down to reach her several times, then rested on the bank for several minutes before returning on foot to the Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "Boiler Room Girls" had occurred. One of the "Boiler Room Girls" is now big-time New York literary agent Esther Newberg, who was Mary Jo's roommate for the weekend. Like everyone involved in the incident, Esther remains close-mouthed about what occurred. Joseph Gargan (Kennedy's cousin) and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Although there was a telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, nobody called for help. When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel. However, the Edgartown-Chappaquiddick ferry (which connects Chappaquiddick to the rest of the island) had shut down for the night. Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown. The next morning, the police recovered Kennedy's car and the body of Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy discussed the accident with several people, including his lawyer and Kopechne's parents, before discussing it with the police the next morning. Her death was ruled an accidental drowning, and no autopsy was performed. Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended. The sentence was notable in that the statute for the crime provided only for mandatory jail time and not the discretion of a suspended sentence. An Edgartown grand jury later reopened the investigation but did not return an indictment. The incident quickly became a scandal. Kennedy was criticized for failing to save Kopechne, for failing to summon help immediately, and for contacting not the police but rather his lawyer first. It is widely believed that the Chappaquiddick incident was the major factor in Kennedy's decision not to run for president in 1972. The case resulted in much satire of Kennedy. Rumors have circulated since, and many believe that Kennedy was intoxicated at the time of the incident. Photo taken July 23, 1969. (UPI Photo/Files)
License photo (http://www.upi.com/topic/Mary_Jo_Kopechne/photos/pg-8/#)
Enlarge http://www.upi.com/img/magnify_enl.gif (http://www.upi.com/enl-win/b5627b58269d3a7d8c8f84ae7351f26d/)

















http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-6f-UEpuUYMvwI.gif (http://www.quantcast.com/p-6f-UEpuUYMvwI)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Ah... so there isn't a guard rail after all. I stand corrected.

[Tiz]

I've seen photos of the bridge with big, substantial wooden railings. Added after the accident, apparently.

[Ol Man River]

I am pretty sure that picture was after the accident happened.

and another reason he never ran for president was he didn't want to
end up like his brothers.

[Tiz]

Photo taken July 23, 1969. I'm guessing the accident is why it was taken.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I am pretty sure that picture was after the accident happened.

and another reason he never ran for president was he didn't want to
end up like his brothers.

He did run for President in 1980. He lost in the Primary to Jimmy Carter.

[Ol Man River]

ok I stand corrected. Carter won the party nomination by almost
2 to 1 votes. Carter was the incumbent and he was running for
a second term.

[natisha]

I read somewhere that she didn't drown but died of asphyxiation, when the trapped air ran out. Either way I don't think he ultimately ended up where she did.

[gabhainn]

I read somewhere that she didn't drown but died of asphyxiation, when the trapped air ran out. Either way I don't think he ultimately ended up where she did.
WHAT????? u mean drunken, lying, murdering womanizers dont go to heaven?

[offgridgirl]

Ah... so there isn't a guard rail after all. I stand corrected.
I don't remember a guard rail on that bridge! Good picture Tiz!!

My mother is thinkin of moving here now that A republican is elected....Ugh not so good for us:eek:.!! Can they have a "do-over" election??? That one shouldn't count!! It was a bad hair day:doh:!

YouTube- Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

Here is a video that a friend sent me!!

[OffGridGuy]

I remember visiting that bridge (I lived near there) in the early 70's, might have been 72 or 73. Looks just like I remember it then. Not to defend anyone, but they 'used' to have a lot of those old wooden bridges back then and they would sure be slippery when wet. No guard rails, just some old RR ties at their edges.

My good friend lost his father on a similar bridge but it was over a train crossing. The car slid on the wood, car flipped and landed on the track upside down pinning the family. My friend managed to get out and go for help, but the train came first. Crippled his brother, killed his dad, and basically screwed him up for years.

Now I'm always nervous around wooden bridges, especially on the horses.. They slide around too.

[Ol Man River]

ROFLMAO

[natisha]

WHAT????? u mean drunken, lying, murdering womanizers dont go to heaven? What would they do there?;)

[gabhainn]

What would they do there?;)
good point