Sunday, January 17, 2010

It’s Not Kennedy’s Seat

From a friend on Facebook.  Ouch…

Quote of the day= “It is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. If it were Ted Kennedy’s seat it would be upside-down and underwater.”

(13) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2113 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

  1. If Coakly wins Massachusetts by the same means that won Frankin Minnesota there can no longer be any question that the elections system of this country have been corrupted, and are no longer the measure of the people’s will. But what is to be done to confront the corruption when the Attorney General of the U.S. sees nothing wrong with baton wielding Black Panthers intimidating voters in Pittsburgh during the 2008 elections? Can we truly believe in a system that has begun to mirror those of countries that repeatedly end in the election of despotic tyrants?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 1020 hrs


  2. The author of the quote missed the most important aspect of Sen. Kennedy’s seat. It would not only be upside-down and underwater, but it would have the body of a dead young female sitting in it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 1030 hrs


  3. Owen, for a normally classy guy you do have lapses.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 1103 hrs


  4. I see nothing tasteless about the quote. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said “To anger a conservative, lie to them, to anger a liberal, tell them the truth.” The whole Kennedy clan covered up a murder plain and simple and just because it makes people uncomfortable on the lib side does not mean it is tasteless. Tasteless can be defined as putting statues of the Mother of Jesus in vials of urine…but that is art…right?

    Posted by fishaddict on January 18, 2010 at 1118 hrs


  5. As a “so called liberal”, I can honestly say, THAT WAS FUNNY!!!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 1417 hrs


  6. Speaking of Franklin and MN….now that elections are decided by razor-thin margins, what are the odds that - even if she loses - Coakley will pull a Coleman and insist on dragging it out with legal challenges? Based on the MN model it could be weeks (or months) before Stephens is seated in the Senate.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 1420 hrs


  7. now that elections are decided by razor-thin margins, what are the odds that - even if she loses - Coakley will pull a Coleman and insist on dragging it out with legal challenges?

    It ain’t gonna be that close.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 1546 hrs


  8. It is going to be real close.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 1645 hrs


  9. I suppose that depends on your definition of ‘close’ ... when you say REAL close, I think of Coleman/Franken close ... a few hundred to 1500 or so votes.  Based on that definition, I completely disagree, it won’t be real close at all.

    To me, close is within 4 points ... and I think Brown wins by at least 6, and I think that is probably generous to Coakley.

    There is not a single poll in the last 4 days (8 of them) that has Coakley ahead.  Only the Daily KOS poll has it as a tie.  ARG does show it statistically tied (Brown +3) but 6 of those eight polls released in the last 3 days has Brown up by 5 points or more, with half of them showing a double digit Brown lead.

    The bottom has fallen out of Coakley’s campaign.  The media and Democratic operatives are already in full spin mode on how this happened only because she was a bad candidate, and has nothing to do with the Health Care debate, or the Obama agenda, etc.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 1806 hrs


  10. Sally Quinn has it figured out.  He’s going to win because he’s a hunk and posed nude back in ‘82 for Cosmo or some such magazine.  A pretty flattering portrait painted of the Bay State electorate.  But it begs the question ... what explains Barney Frank then??

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 2114 hrs


  11. Franken/Coleman was freakishly close, as was Bush/Gore in FL.  Three freakishly close major elections in a decade is unlikely. 

    I would call real close as within 3 points.  I don’t think Brown will win by more than that.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2010 at 2122 hrs


  12. 3rd Way, I tend to agree with you- about 3% with Brown winning.  But it should not be this close to begin with.  The Dem’s annointed a canidate and the gOP had actually hd someone running.  There are a lot of parallels to the NY rep race earlier.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2010 at 0056 hrs


  13. If Brown wins Kennedy’s Senate seat, he had better know the number to a good furniture repair shop. That chair is gonna need some new padding, springs, and will probably need to be narrowed up a bit.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2010 at 1117 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.