WBZ Boston streaming results...

[Guest]

Senate Special Election - Massachusetts
146 of 2168 Precincts Reporting
NAME VOTES Pct.
Scott Brown (R) 71,914 51%
Martha Coakley (D) 67,506 48%
Joseph Kennedy (I) 1,243 1%


posted 8:27

[Guest]

I love the early results. Lets hope the dead votes don't overtake the lead.

[Guest]

Brown seems to be holding a 5% lead pretty consistent, but Boston is not yet reported! Drudge.com has the MA breakdown by county.

If Brown wins - I hope it is while Rachael Maddow is on - I'd love to hear her rationalization - she'll probably blame the Coakley loss on GW!

[Guest]

Coakley concedes. Brown won!

[Guest]

Maybe Congress will finally get the message about what many have been trying to get through their heads. It's gonna get really interesting.

[Guest]

This, hopefully, is just the beginning of the reaction to Washington's arrogance toward us the people. Heads will roll....guaranteed!

[Guest]

November... we're coming for the rest of them too. :icon_hungry:

[Guest]

November... we're coming for the rest of them too. :icon_hungry:
YAHOO. Scott Brown the BIG winner. Onward, lots more libs to get rid of between now and November. Americans are united. We believe in the Constitution and what it says and stands for.

The change we have gotten over the past year is NOT the change I voted for.

[Guest]

has been handed the opportunity to take this nation back its core values. This can easily be lost if we allow people such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson to define us. We need to realize that we will not agree on 100% of the issues and no single issue can been used as a 'litmus test.'

We need leaders like Bobby Jindahl, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio and Scott Brown. To be effective, we need Reagan's 'big tent.' The United States is a center-right country. We are rejecting the neo-marxism of the present leaders just as we rejected the neocons before them.

As we are proving in Haiti, the American people are incredibly generous and compassionate. Only if we show the same compassion and respect to each other can we effectively pull together.

Scott Brown's acceptance speech set a wonderful tone for going forward. His campaign was clean and positive. Let's learn from our winners and not go back into the mud just because those are the tactics used by far too many in the present leadership of the current party in power. Look where it's gotten them.

[Guest]

This could be just what the Democrats need without knowing it.

Brown isn't new. He's a state senator. This is a promotion for him.

Once the lightning-rod known as health-care reform has it's fate decided, there are a lot of other things on the table where I think Brown will be extremely vulnerable. This is especially true in financial matters. Even on health-care reform, he was opposed to outlawing "anti pre-existing condition" legislation.

In his ads, he quite correctly talked about small business being an engine. If he doesn't watch out, he could get tagged with the Big Business Bush/Cheney TaxBreakForTheRich tag and that may be the death of him.

He cannot appear to be to overconfident - though, being in the minority party should help him maintain his 'underdog' image.

[Guest]

This could be just what the Democrats need without knowing it.

Once the lightning-rod known as health-care reform has it's fate decided, there are a lot of other things on the table where I think Brown will be extremely vulnerable. This is especially true in financial matters. Even on health-care reform, he was opposed to outlawing "anti pre-existing condition" legislation.

In his ads, he quite correctly talked about small business being an engine. If he doesn't watch out, he could get tagged with the Big Business Bush/Cheney TaxBreakForTheRich tag and that may be the death of him.


Could that be sour grapes and wishful thinking on your part? What would you have posted if Coakley had won? ......hmmmm.

[Guest]

being used on Brown to analyze Brown.

Why should he worry about being careful? Does anybody see any other elected official in Washington being careful about anything the don't do well....or have experience.....which is considerable.

Of all the Washington representatives currently in elected office, he is the least to fear. He has not yet been exposed to the corrupt methods of "negotiating" in Washington. Therefore, in my eyes at least, he stands head and shoulders above any of them.

Does anybody see any of the other elected representatives covering their weaknesses? Not by their actions they don't!!!!!!! Hence a flushing is due and has been under taken beginning last night.

Let's hope and pray the results inspire even more of the silent majority to rise up and be counted.

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

referring to an earlier post, i would not put rush limbaugh in the same category with pat robertson...i think he is usually right on in most issues and does not blame anything on the devil....just on the liberals!

[Guest]

"In his ads, he quite correctly talked about small business being an engine. If he doesn't watch out, he could get tagged with the Big Business Bush/Cheney TaxBreakForTheRich tag and that may be the death of him."

"Business", big or small, is what drives the American way. Business creates jobs, not government give away programs. Bill Gates built a giant of job creation, a welfare recipient (or SSI ripoff) creates a larger government anchor on business and individual taxpayers.

[Guest]

What would I have written if Coakley had one? Massachusetts politics as usual. Coakley should be in jail. She has no business being anywhere near a position of power. She's far more interested in image over justice.

I was simply postulating on ways the Democrats could benefit from Brown's victory.

There was so much negative campaigning on both sides that you couldn't really tell WHAT EITHER candidate was actually FOR. About all you got on the 'positive' side was:

Coakley: I'll continue Ted Kennedy's legacy.

Brown: I won't be part of the Democratic machine (and I drive a truck, and I know who Curt Schilling is and I know how to spell "Massachusetts").

There are SO many really odd ironies in this race.

For example, I disagree with what appears to be Brown's stance on what degree of rights *accused* terrorists have (convicted ones are another matter). I may have misinterpereted his statements, but it appears as though he wants to throw out the entire Constitution if you are *accused* of being a terrorist. (And of course, the government would NEVER get it WRONG, now would they? Ask the sad-sack of a guy who was accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombing). On the other hand, you have Coakley who not only refuses to go along with parole recommendations when it's discovered that someone was improperly convicted, but CAMPAIGNS AGAINST LETTING JUSTICE PREVAIL.

So who do you vote for from that point of view?

Coakley talks about continuing the push for 'Obamacare', while Brown is against it (fair enough) but doesn't talk about what he WOULD do to fight even SOME of the problems in the health care system. That's where the whole "Party of NO" slogan gets it's start.

Some worry that Coakley would have meant socializing banks and other industries, while Brown think they should be left to run free - and next time we might not be able to bail them out, IMO.

Not a pleasant view.

[Guest]

What would I have written if Coakley had one? Massachusetts politics as usual. Coakley should be in jail. She has no business being anywhere near a position of power. She's far more interested in image over justice.

I was simply postulating on ways the Democrats could benefit from Brown's victory.

There was so much negative campaigning on both sides that you couldn't really tell WHAT EITHER candidate was actually FOR. About all you got on the 'positive' side was:

Coakley: I'll continue Ted Kennedy's legacy.

Brown: I won't be part of the Democratic machine (and I drive a truck, and I know who Curt Schilling is and I know how to spell "Massachusetts").

There are SO many really odd ironies in this race.

For example, I disagree with what appears to be Brown's stance on what degree of rights *accused* terrorists have (convicted ones are another matter). I may have misinterpereted his statements, but it appears as though he wants to throw out the entire Constitution if you are *accused* of being a terrorist. (And of course, the government would NEVER get it WRONG, now would they? Ask the sad-sack of a guy who was accused of the Atlanta Olympic bombing). On the other hand, you have Coakley who not only refuses to go along with parole recommendations when it's discovered that someone was improperly convicted, but CAMPAIGNS AGAINST LETTING JUSTICE PREVAIL.

So who do you vote for from that point of view?

Coakley talks about continuing the push for 'Obamacare', while Brown is against it (fair enough) but doesn't talk about what he WOULD do to fight even SOME of the problems in the health care system. That's where the whole "Party of NO" slogan gets it's start.

Some worry that Coakley would have meant socializing banks and other industries, while Brown think they should be left to run free - and next time we might not be able to bail them out, IMO.

Not a pleasant view.

Where in our Costitution does it say we cannot have military trials? Where does it say that in war we cannot treat the enemy different from our own citizens?

[Guest]

cashman...exactly right...you beat me to the keyboard...

[Guest]

referring to an earlier post, i would not put rush limbaugh in the same category with pat robertson...i think he is usually right on in most issues and does not blame anything on the devil....just on the liberals!

I'll agree to the extent that Pat Robertson was as out of touch with reality in his Haitian quote as he was when he said of Gay Days at Disney World in Orlando, "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor." Pat Robertson is a slick talking televangelist as well as a bigot.

Rush Limbaugh on the other hand is a slick talking entertainer. Republicans should no more endorse him than they should any other entertainer be it Tom Selleck or Barbara Striesand. RL is paid for ratings and commercial sales. This is as it should be for a radio talk show host. If saying outlandish things gets better ratings, then those that advertise on his program are entitled to have him say these outlandish things. He has, in essence, agreed to this. This is not a knock on RL, but a statement that if we want someone to speak for the Republican party, it should be neither a televangelist or a paid entertainer.

[Guest]

I'm not saying we can't have military trials. Far from it.

Suspected operatives captured outside the U.S. certainly fall into that category. My objection is holding them without even charging them for numerous years. If you arrested them, you must have had evidence (even if that evidence was "they shot at my platoon") so CHARGE THEM. Put them on trial.

If, however, they're Americans on our soil, the Constitution covers them, whether you like it or not. For other caught on our soil, I'd say that it depends on who caught them.

But even with military trials, *we* could end up paying for the lawyer of the accused - it's their right and it's one of the things that makes "us" better than "them" - fair trials.

Even the Nuremburg Trials lasted from November 1945 (just months after VE-Day) to October 1946. How many people have we detained for eight years without charge? How many did we hold for five or more years before releasing them without charge?

If you have evidence - use it. Charge them. Try them. The system still works. One can quibble over civilian or military, but follow the process. Again, that's one of the hallmarks of a democracy - we are a nation of laws, not men.

[Guest]

Seems to me that we treat our prisoners very well. We don't behead them.

[Guest]

I'm not saying we can't have military trials. Far from it.

Suspected operatives captured outside the U.S. certainly fall into that category. My objection is holding them without even charging them for numerous years. If you arrested them, you must have had evidence (even if that evidence was "they shot at my platoon") so CHARGE THEM. Put them on trial.

If, however, they're Americans on our soil, the Constitution covers them, whether you like it or not. For other caught on our soil, I'd say that it depends on who caught them.

But even with military trials, *we* could end up paying for the lawyer of the accused - it's their right and it's one of the things that makes "us" better than "them" - fair trials.

Even the Nuremburg Trials lasted from November 1945 (just months after VE-Day) to October 1946. How many people have we detained for eight years without charge? How many did we hold for five or more years before releasing them without charge?

If you have evidence - use it. Charge them. Try them. The system still works. One can quibble over civilian or military, but follow the process. Again, that's one of the hallmarks of a democracy - we are a nation of laws, not men.

Where in the constitution. You make these statements with no back up.

[Guest]

Article III, Section 2:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed"

In other words, if the FBI arrests a sleeper cell in Buflo NY (remember that?), the trial should be held in New York.

The Sixth Ammendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, "

The Fourteenth Ammendment, Section 1:
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Domestic terrorists that are caught on U.S. soil are CLEARLY covered by the Constitution.

[Guest]

There's a difference between robbing a bank and killing 3000 people at one time. Especially when you are affiliated with and trained by terrorist organizations. There is a war on terrorism and these dogs are war criminals, not someone that stuck up a connivence store.

War criminals should be tried in a military tribunal as they have been for many years. They consider the world as their battle field and should be treated as such, not given tax payer funded lawyers to pick out loopholes for them.

There are also many security issues to consider as well. That's what military tribunals are for.

Honesty I'm surprised anyone would advocate giving terrorists Constitutional privileges.

"A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings."

[Guest]

There's a difference between robbing a bank and killing 3000 people at one time. Especially when you are affiliated with and trained by terrorist organizations. There is a war on terrorism and these dogs are war criminals, not someone that stuck up a connivence store.

War criminals should be tried in a military tribunal as they have been for many years. They consider the world as their battle field and should be treated as such, not given tax payer funded lawyers to pick out loopholes for them.

There are also many security issues to consider as well. That's what military tribunals are for.

Honesty I'm surprised anyone would advocate giving terrorists Constitutional privileges.

"A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings."

Straightforward and well said.

[Guest]

Article III, Section 2:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed"

In other words, if the FBI arrests a sleeper cell in Buflo NY (remember that?), the trial should be held in New York.

The Sixth Ammendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, "

The Fourteenth Ammendment, Section 1:
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Domestic terrorists that are caught on U.S. soil are CLEARLY covered by the Constitution.

Sorry the constitution of the United States was written for the United States and its citizens.

You referenced the treatment of criminals.

Prisoners of war are not criminals.

[Guest]

Last I checked, "Conspiracy" was still a crime that ordinary police arrested people for.

Tim McVeigh was no less a terrorist than any of the 9/11 conspirators.

He was tried, convicted and sentenced in Federal courts, if memory serves.

I might agree with you if McVeigh had been arrested outside the United States but he wasn't. I might agree with you if McVeigh wasn't a U.S. citizen, be he was. Heck, McVeigh might have been convicted faster under military justice.

Terrorists are common criminals and are not entitled to "prisoner of war" status. Here's a summary from Wikipedia about the definition:

"Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable)."

Convicting terrorists of crimes and imprisoning them doesn't seem to follow that model. ...especially the "repatriated" part.

Now, about the people who *qualify* for that treatment:

"To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, do not necessarily wear an issued uniform nor carry arms openly, yet captured combatants of this type have sometimes been granted POW status."

Saying we are in a "War on Terrorism" leaves a lot open to interpretation. The part that scares me is the "we say you're a terrorist so we can hold you just about forever" possibility. Regardless of whether or not a person is guilty.

I once gave the following example to my (now ex) wife concerning a story about someone caught on video committing a crime.. I worked at an investment firm on Boston's waterfront, in the World Trade Center. Sometimes my job required me to work until after midnight (those instances usually happened on a Friday night). What if someone planted a bomb there, timed to go off in the middle of the night? I leave my office, anxious to get back home. Halfway to the parking lot, I realize I left something back at my desk. I run back in to deal with it quickly and am jogging back to my car when the bomb goes off. In the aftermath, security sees me running on the security recordings form the cameras all over the building. Suddenly, I'm the lead on the weekend news. I *look* guilty as hell. With "lock 'em up and throw away the key" for a mentality, I'm locked away for who-knows-how-long and the real bomber is laughing his tail off at my misfortune.

THAT is why we have trials. We have them so that Richard Jewell doesn't pay for what Eric Rudolph did.