Will Mass. be one of the first states to send a message to politicians?
 

Even though the long shot has closed the gap considerably we can only hope and pray Brown shuts out Coakly....would that be a message or what. Coming from a Dem state....ruled by the Kennedys.

Oh please hope and pray it starts here!!!!!!!!

btk

I agree
 

I hope it more than just a moral victory for us. I think if Brown even comes in within 4-5 points of winning it will send a message to the Dems.:highfive::highfive:

I don't know if its true, but I read that there has been a surge in request for absentee ballots. If by some chance Scott Brown wins you can bet that ACORN will take of things for Coakley.

This would be nice, but the Democratic apparatus in Mass is NOT going to allow it to happen !

A bit like illinois politics
 

Bucco: You may be right. I know every election in Illinois and especially Chicago they get some very odd numbers. Precincts with 5000 registered voters going Democratic like 7000 Dem to 200 Rep. Never could understand that one. :agree::agree:

There are a lot of independents in Massachusetts. They are the key. And God. Let us pray.

Yoda

Boston Globe reports this morning that this race is basically a dead heat...although Brown leads Coakley, it is within the margin of error.

I was struck by this in the aritcle...

"But Secretary of State William F. Galvin, Massachusetts' top election official, said certifying Tuesday's results could take more than two weeks.

That delay could give Senate Democrats time push Obama's signature legislation through Congress. Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr., the interim replacement for the seat, says he will vote for the bill if given the chance."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...gop_candidate/

It is an interesting race and one which shows what voters think of this health bill !

The problem is that Scott Brown is not the kind of Republican that MA voters can embrace. Of course, that he's this close AT ALL is more an indictment of Martha Coakley (who still hasn't apologized for her witch hunts of a couple decades ago).

There really isn't that much of a difference in some areas that should really matter. Both of them want a more intrusive government.

Scott Brown thinks it's ok to deny you your civil rights - all they have to do is call you a terrorist. Doesn't matter whether you are or not. A quote from one of his ads (I see them every morning on the news) says that he doesn't believe "the Constitution was designed to protect terrorists who want to harm us". So you're convicted, in his eyes, before the trial. It says in the Constitution that you must be indicted by a Grand Jury - and since 1215, the Magna Carta (which was law in the American Colonies before the revolution) says "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers". Never mind the fact that he thinks it's wrong to allow a rape victim to have a 'morning after' pill and also supports more tax cuts (with no explanation of how to solve our spending problems).

Martha Coakley, on the other hand, belongs in prison. She became District Attorney in 1999 and the infamous Fells Acres Day Care case against the Amirault family had come up.. She prevented an onnocent man from being release even though a parole board realized that there'd been a horrible miscarriage of justice. The Amiraul family was found guilty of horrendous child abuse despite there being wildly contradictory testimony by children who were coached by 'therapists' and a COMPLETE, UTTER and TOTAL LACK of ANY physical evidence. Supposedly children were being raped in the front yard in full view of the highway - yet nobody ever saw this. There were supposedly "secret rooms" that were either in non-existant upstairs or downstairs floors, depending on which kid/therapist combo you listened to. There were animal sacrifices that supposedly took places staining carpets that were clean as a whistle. Unbelievable stuff that then had Coakley at the forefront of denying parole (despite a pareole board voting 5-0 to release Gerald Amirault) - she couldn't stand to let an innocent man free on her watch because it would look like it was her fault he was in prison in the first place. She has never so much as apologized for her actions.

Neither is a good choice in this election.

But does it not appear that it has become a referendum on the health care bill ???

Remember Kennedy
 

The system that gave Kennedy a pass in mass. for his acts of corruption
is still there. Given that fact who do you think will win regardless of how the people vote?

Bucco you are absolutely correct, it is a statement
 

against health care....it is a statement against the Dems who are not living up to expectations promised....

The fact that Brown can be close or ahead by some measures this morning, is in itself enough to give the Dems cause for concerns about those states that may not be as wired as Mass. thinks it is.

And I don't think the Kennedys have that much of a lock on the independents who are just likely to show that.

Two days ago it was stated by a Kennedy spokesman that they, the Kennedys, would stay out of it. And now that Brown is really in the race....gee....the Kennedy machine is cranking....and who wants to bet Obama makes a stop there this weekend? I don't know why the Dems think his persona is such a boost in confidence; check his ratings. All he can do is schmooze and pass the good word....that is it....and that is another issue many are fed up with in either party.

btk

Vote
 

How interesting if the vote is close, Obama would like this because he then can get his Health Care bill through because of a recount, and thats all he needs is a few weeks to have that happen. How crocked it this government.............

From your keyboard to God's monitor!!!

I heard that Obama was going to travel to Haiti and view the devistation but we can see where his priorities are now. The news today reported that he intends on going to Mass. to stump for Coakly instead. Why am I not surprised. And BTW... the news reports tonight that Brown has a 3 point lead! Here's hoping the reports are correct.

Why
 

It does not matter because no Reublican will win in Mass. The corruption will see to that.

I'm afraid you are right, Cashman. Al Franken etc. all over again.

There is a web site called intrade.com that predicts the outcomes of things - including elections. It has a very good track record. Intrade currently had the probability of a republican win at 57% and a democrat win at 45%. Weather reports also predict bad weather for the Tuesday elections which may also suppress democrat turnout.

Intrade also predicts a 67% probability of the republicans taking control of congress in the 2010 mid-term elections.

This is the hope and change I can believe in.

For those who think republicans can't win in Massachusetts, I might point you to the list of the previous governors.

People like Paul Celucci, Jane Swift, Mitt Romney, William Weld - all of them Republican. In fact, Weld was so popular that people wanted him to run for President but he decided not to put his family through that.

The formula for winning in MA is easy. Be a "pro-choice Republican". If you believe in individual liberties AND restricted government, you can win. Oh, and putting in a line like "we will reintroduce criminals to the joys of breaking rocks" doesn't hurt. It helped Weld get elected twice.

No Choice
 

A pro-choice Republican is an oximoron. If someone says they are a pro-choice Repulican they are a moron.

Cashman, may I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. The abortion issue is not a choice between right and wrong, but between right and right

It involves answering two questions, not one.

Question ! - Does a woman have the right to control her own body? To me, the answer is very clearly yes.

Question 2 - Does the unborn infant have the right to live? Again a clear and resounding yes.

Balancing these two rights is what the Supreme Court attempted to do in Roe v Wade. In essence it left the choice of the mother supreme in the first two trimesters, but gave the state the right to regulate abortion (act on the behalf of the infant) in the third trimester. Another way to understand it is that in the first two trimesters, the infant is not viable outside the womb and therefore the mother's rights trump the rights of the infant. In the third trimester, when the infant is capable of living outside of the womb, the state may choose to have the infants right to live take priority over the mother's rights.

I understand that this is a simplified explanation of the ruling in one of the, if not the most, contentious issues of our time. IMHO, the court did a good job of balancing these rights. I am am first and foremost a conservative who believes in conservation of our resources, limited government, respect for individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. Respecting individual liberty requires that I consider the rights of both the child and the mother.

Call me a moron
 

if you have to be that black & white about the issue.

I don't like abortion. I wish that there were none. I am against partial birth abortions and late term abortions except under the most dire circumstances.

Unless there is a medical emergency, I think that the first trimester is time enough to decide if you need an abortion or not.

I do not want government money used to fund abortion. If you can find money for a car or a TV or stereo, you can find money for an abortion.

I can imagine circumstances that may cause a woman to feel that abortion is her best or only option. As much as it bothers me, I would pass no law arbitrarily forbidding abortion. Let those who feel the need, deal with their God. I cannot judge them.

I am a conservative and a registered republican. All is not black & white.

I just pray that no child is aborted without long and careful thought.

Yoda

Wrong
 

Taking the life of a human being is wrong except in self defence.

Roe vs Wade is law not morality.

A baby or a human in developement deserves the right to life just like those of us who were not aborted.

Unfortunately, this is a very gray area. There are so many people shouting on various sides that it's hard to make sense sometimes.

You have people screaming that they don't want government to pay for an abortion (couple hundred dollars) and they'll be the same sones screaming that they don't want the government paying for the birth (several thousand) or welfare/assistance after the birth (which can be hundreds of thousands in a lifetime).

I had to clean up the mess from what is medically termed a "spontaneous abortion" - colloquially known as a miscarriage. My then-wife was in no shape to do it.

I simply can't force myself to believe that a clump of cells has the same rights as a born person. Don't get me wrong - there is the *potential* there, nobody can argue against that. Having been through the process twice (I have two daughters), you can't help but be affected by it. But what my ex-wife lost was not in the same category as my two girls (now 17 and 22).

I also speak from the experience of one who was adopted at birth.

And, if you think it through - that every fetus, every blastocyte, every fertilized egg has the *same* rights to life as one who has been born, you set a chilling precedent. Then you open the door for the 'miscarriage police' and charges of (at the very least) "negligent homicide" if a woman is deemed to not have taken care of herself enough during pregnancy.

That is *very* scary.

As it is, with more and better contraception (among other reasons) the abortion rate is going down and has been for some time now. This, to me, is A Good Thing.

I agree with you.

The question
 

Is and unborn fertilized potential human being going to be a person someday or not. That is the question.

If conception means "the Beginning" then that entity which "began"
has the right to live unless the Mother's life is at stake.

That is the point.(A mothers life. Incest. Rape.) There are exceptions. I personally could not have an abortion.

I am old enough that I personally can see gray areas where I used to view things in black and white.

I could not kill anything. I had to have my aged pet put to sleep last year and it was anguishing.

We cannot legislate a persons morality.

We have a daughter with Williams Syndrome. She is a person who we adore, enjoy, live with, love SO much. If I had a choice to have her or not have her? OF COURSE I would have her. Her life is one of our greatest treasures.

amen !!

YES -- why wouldn't the people of Massachusetts elect Scott Brown. It's about time a wonderful candidate like Scott Brown finally got through to run. The field of 'characters' for the last 10 years has been abysmal.

And it is stuff like this that keeps the GOP as a minority party. If we (and yes I am a pro choice Republician) want to be a "big tent" party, we have to get rid of these litmus tests. For the most part, the USA is with the GOP on the issues. It is this inane infighting that kills us.

Well said.

abortion choice
 

The facts of ovulation say there is approximately a 25 percent of a normally fertile woman getting pregnant in any given cycle. There is a 12 to 24 hour time frame during any normally fertile woman's cycle that she becomes a part of this 25 percent chance. That is a 25 percent chance, once a month, for a 24 hour period that someone can get pregnant. It is the same for a rape victim. I just wonder the percent of rape victim getting pregnant at that precise time she is raped. I read somewhere that approximately 20,000 of the 300,000 rape victims in the US annually become pregnant. There are more than 13 million American women who are at a childbearing age. It is just my personal opinion that it is a personal choice. But let's not disguise someone's personal choice to use abortion as birth control as "saving" someone's life or for the dignity of a rape victiim. bk

It's been my experience that most abortions happen as a result of birth-control failure. ..that is, the pregnancy was came about due to contraceptive failure (anything from a broken condom, to forgetting a pill to "got pregnant regardless"). Of those I've known, it's usually women who were on the pill. One in particular that I remember hadn't been told that antibiotics can nullify the effects of the pill.

In effect, that's what happened to us. For whatever reason, my ex and I found ourselves with a pregnancy on our hands (The Pill be damned, evidently). Here's the hard part. We'd just both gone in for a series of full-torso x-rays and we'd both just started seeing a chiropractor. Doing the math, we discovered that my ex had been pregnant for a few days when she had all of her x-rays.

We discovered just what kinds of risks we were in for and the news was NOT good. The odds of "complications" were now orders of magnitude higher than with our first daughter. It was not an easy decision to abort - far from it.

Within three years, we had another daughter - very much planned - to the point that we were trying to conceive as soon as the doctor said it was ok after the miscarriage I mentioned up-topic. We didn't want TOO much time in between our kids. 5 years was enough :)

It's not a fun or easy topic to discuss.

We will know shortly.

Roe v Wade was passed in 1973, Since then there have benn over 49 million abortions in the U.S.

Ask yourself when life begins. I believe life begins at conception.

Unless you believe that life does not begin until birth (that's why we have birthdays, right?) or some other nonsensical view, how does anyone even begin to defend 49 MILLION abortions?

Wow this thread has skidded into some sort of a lateral
 

arabesque....or something.

Yes, Mass. has become one of the states where we the people intende(ed) to send a message.

At this point.....the answer to the thread appears to be .....YES!!!!!!!!!!!

The next few days will be interesting as both sides attempt to spin the results.
No matter what they do or say, they DO NOW KNOW we the people are serious....all parties included.

btk