Brown won the Massachusetts Special Election.

It will be interesting to see the next Daily Show, that is for sure.

^ Everything politics-oriented is gonna get interesting for a while.

Pwn'd.

To clarify:
John Stewart pwn'd this segment. Hilarious, concise, and well-dissected. "Hello, I'm ReverendTed. I'm a Republican, and I love John Stewart."

The Republicans pwn'd this election. Of all seats to win at this particular moment - Kennedy's.

The Democrats pwn'd the Republicans. Because the Republicans are celebrating the fact that they're no longer being absolutely dominated.

I'll say this: a Supermajority with an Executive of the same party is dangerous and damaging regardless of who is in power. The two party system is fundamentally flawed, yes, but when the parties know cooperation is necessary then things get watered down until they're palatable (or at least not patently offensive) to the majority of Americans - people who have nuanced and personal opinions about issues rather than the right-wing\left-wing party lines. The Democrats have crafted this health bill knowing that Republicans have been powerless to oppose it, and then accused the Republicans of partisan politics and refusal to compromise. "I live in New York, and you live in L.A., so let's compromise and meet in Philadelphia. What? You can't accept that? Well you just don't believe in compromise!"

Heh. Did I seriously just suggest that Americans have "nuanced and personal opinions" about issues?

Someone got paid to throw the fight...

Reminds me of MN losing Paul Wellstone's seat to Norm Coleman. Seems like the Dem candidate did a pretty good job of campaigning terribly.

If it hadn't been for the dupe titled "Jon Stewart Hysterical About Democrats Senate Loss", which appealed to me, I wouldn't have seen Stewart's comment on the election, because I didn't draw any connection between "Mass Backwards" and the Massachusetts election and thus wouldn't have looked at the video in the first place.

So, the dupe was killed too quickly, if you ask me.

That was Epic.

By popular demand, I've updated the title to something more eye catching.

"and wait for you to trip"
saved the best till last

Stewart - like most of the Democrats - completely missed what Brown was all about. Brown himself was just a lucky schmoe who happened to 'be there'. You could have put a potted plant against Croakley and the result would have been similar. Croakley - like the bulk of the Democrat party today - was drunk on a sense of priveledge, power, and arrogance. For the past year they've been strutting around thinking that the wave of anger against GWB was going to let them do whatever they wanted. They also thought that the man-child Barak Obama really was all that and a bag of chips and whatever he wanted was what the people wanted and what was best for the country. This combination of arrogance and the illusion that Obama was 'more' than just a twit in a suit gave them the mental security blanket they have been DREAMING of having for years.

They're liberals. They are far-left leaning radicals. And they've had to HIDE it for soooo long. Then along comes a supermajority and a popular leftist president and they thought they could finally - FINALLY - take the mask off and let it all hang out. So they did. They started trying to pass crap that nobody liked. The people started rejecting it, and in their arrogance and hubris they ignored popular opinion (just like Bush did on Iraq). The tea parties were not the grumbling of a few puppet malcontents (like Pelosi, Obama, Stewert, et al wished they were). They were the tip of a very angry iceberg.

People elected Obama because he sold himself as a guy who was 'post-partisan' and would help correct the financial crisis caused by government over-spending and debt. Instead the people were dismayed with Obama's radical leftist agenda. They protested, but the left-wing liberals were in NO MOOD to let their leftist agenda get interrupted by such piddling trifles as the PEOPLE. So they mocked the protests. They ignored the voters. They pretty much spit in the face of the people, and now it has come back to bite them in the @$$ (just like Bush).

So Kennedy's seat is gone because they ran an arrogant, disconnected liberal lapdog who thought the seat was her's just because she showed up. Seen the news today? Health Care Reform is DEAD! This is a GREAT day for America because a radical, left-wing assault on freedom has been killed dead. Democrats rats are jumping the SS HealthCareReform in droves. Even Pelosi is giving up on it. Huzzah! Let's hope the GOP takes both houses of Congress this fall and throw government into total deadlock.

I never underestimate the GOP's ability to shoot itself in the foot. But things are looking promising. Brown won because he was unapologetically CONSERVATIVE. He said, "I'll stop health care because it is stupid policy..." He was totally right. The people responded. The GOP path is clear. If you want to skunk the "Progressive" liberals in the mid-terms then run on a CONSERVATIVE ticket where you promise to balance the budget, CUT SPENDING, pay down the debt, and reduce government to its proper scope & function. Do it GOP and you'll have the people behind you. If you just run RINOs like McCain again then you're screwed.

WP, you almost made sense until you said that Obama and the dems were "far-left leaning radicals."

I don't think that you or people like you can win an argument without lying or resorting to hyperbole.

I always make sense, and Obama is a far-left radical. It isn't hyperbole. It is unequivocal fact. His agenda items are all leftist radical wet-dreams. Cap & trade. Universal health care. Government ownership of businesses. His background & education? Radical left wing. His heroes & mentors? Radical left wing. His preachers and colleagues? Radical left wing. If it's educated by ducks, associates with ducks, and all its policies are ducks then just MAYBE it's a duck. When a duck is a duck, it isn't 'hyperbole' to call it a duck. When a man governs like a far left radical, then it isn't hyperbole to call him a far left radical.

Now - I know for a fact that the far left radicals of the U.S. don't think Obama is radical ENOUGH. HuffPo, KoS, DU and all the radical left wing blogs are desperately buzz buzz buzzing about the Brown election. The mental gesticulations - the absolute warping of fact & reality - that they are spewing out is amazing.

According to the radical left, Obama was elected by a country of far-left leaning independants and progressives so that he could change America into Euro-Socio-Rouge-land and try everyone they disagree with as war criminals. Obama didn't make that happen - and THAT is why independants voted for Brown. Oh - I see - so a bunch of far-left indie voters didn't get ENOUGH radical left wing policies enacted and so they decided to vote for a guy who ran on a platform that was DIAMETRICALLY opposed to their own? Ooookaaaaay... :cuckoo!:

Brown has made no bones about it. He's pro-life, anti-global warming, anti-universal health care, and pretty much "anti" everything the radical left wants. Croakley was everything the radical left wanted. She was a rubber stamp for abortion, universal health care, immigration amnesty, cap & trade - the whole ball of wax.

And so these geniuses on the left wing blogs expect everyone to believe that left wing voters were so angry because they didn't get ENOUGH far left radical agenda passed that they pulled the metaphysical equivalent of voting Rush Limbaugh into office. Yeah. Right... B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b

I like to write WALLS OF TEXT.

Oh, wait. That is you.

Radical leftist agenda? It's called thinking and then making decisions (and policy) based on those thoughts. Too bad Obama was all talk and in reality is just another Schill for whoever donates the most funds - America's been duped yet again.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Health Care Reform is DEAD! This is a GREAT day for America because a radical, left-wing assault on freedom has been killed dead.


Did anyone else cringe at that. Granted the health care bill is terrible, but come on, Americans are getting dragged over the coals for health care, everyone has to be able to see that.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

A shame that the Tea Baggers et al have been hoodwinked by the astroturfing insurance companies.
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Health Care Reform is DEAD! This is a GREAT day for America because a radical, left-wing assault on freedom has been killed dead.

Did anyone else cringe at that. Granted the health care bill is terrible, but come on, Americans are getting dragged over the coals for health care, everyone has to be able to see that.

Did anyone else cringe at that. Granted the health care bill is terrible, but come on, Americans are getting dragged over the coals for health care, everyone has to be able to see that.

If it pleases you, then rephrase it to say, "Obama's stupid health care bill". Health care reform should take place by lifting government out of the picture and allowing the free market to bring down costs naturally. His radical left solution of government run one-size fits all health care with bribes to Nevada, labor unions, and everyone else he had to bribe to get votes deserves to dies a painful, ignomineous death. And - yes - it's mouldering corpse deserves to be danced over with glee, joy, and fireworks for it is a victory - not a loss.

"Health care reform should take place by lifting government out of the picture and allowing the free market to bring down costs naturally."

Do the world a favor, and hold your breath until that happens.

Now now now - stooping to Olbermann level childishness will not advance thought or discussion. However, I'm a big enough man to not be offended by your oblique suggestion that I commit suicide. I consider it to be the unfortunate result of adhering to a political philosophy that is based on emotion rather than reason. People trapped in such a world-view tend to react poorly when faced with a reason-based, rational argument (however colorfully phrased) and - ultimately bereft of logical support - must by necessity descend into irrational flailing. It is a practice that elicits not hurt on my part, but stern pity & desire for education and correction.

But I put much trust in the free market. I know this position is antithetical to the radical left wing progressive movement. But when the market is unimpinged by onerous government interference it is the most powerful force for good on Earth. It self corrects marvellously. It reacts with almost frightening speed. And it requires very little maintainance. And - unlike public programs - it actually GENERATES wealth, progress, freedom, plenty, and innovation instead of consuming them.

Is it faultless. No - no human system is perfect. Does government have a role? Certainly. The free market is served wonderfully when government provides a place for people to appeal against real abuses. But with only rare exceptions, the bulk of real 'abuses' ended decades ago. We have moved into a realm where government is no longer dealing with real harm or damage - but instead of micro regulating industry against PERCIEVED abuses. Much like the labor unions no longer function as a 'protector' of the worker, but as a political entity.

The pendulum has swung too far towards over-regulation, and the free market is stifled by it. Lift the shackles off the market, and you'll be amazed at how quickly it will correct things all on its own. Must we always be vigilant against abuses? Sure - but let them be REAL abuses and not humbuggery.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker: I lean Republican\Conservative, I'm glad this healthcare bill is getting sunk, and I believe there's such a thing as "too much government", but there's an argument to be made that Smith's "Invisible Hand" led us into the current mess. There were regulations in place that would have prevented a lot of the garbage we've been dragging ourselves out of for the last few years, but they were dropped in favor of laissez-faire attitudes toward the market. Too much regulation stifles innovation and growth, but there are behaviors and practices that are strictly parasitic or needlessly risky which should be reined in.

much regulation stifles innovation and growth, but there are behaviors and practices that are strictly parasitic or needlessly risky which should be reined in

The history of the housing meltdown is long and tortured - but it began in the 70s under Carter and culminated in the 90s under Clinton. When Clinton's admin repealed Glass-Steagall it lit a slow fuse on the economy which finally blew in 2008.

Congress (both Dem & Repub) wanted more people "in houses" because it got them votes. AIG and other financial houses lobbied for the changes because they saw they could make money by selling financial packages. I remember VERY well in the 90s the rancorous debates on this subject. People who opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagall were labelled by political opponents as 'evil rich fat cats' who 'oppressed the poor' and who wanted to 'deny the American dream to the working class...'

Do you remember that rhetoric? I sure do. They were able to argue very strongly that they were doing a GOOD thing and that opposing them made you a lousy, slimy, no-good dirtbag who hated the working poor.

So the law changed, and ALL BANKS (not just the lobbyists) were forced to deal with new market realities. If you didn't complete - you died. So they opened up financial options for 'the poor' they never would have DREAMED of messing with before. Now the poor could get loans. But in most cases the 'poor' SHOULDN'T have gotten loans because they couldn't afford them. But everyone was told, "Don't worry - Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae will get your back." So they did it anyway not because they were irresponsible or malicious. It was what they were TOLD to do because that's what government wanted, and as such it created a marketplace reality they couldn't avoid.

Moreover, it wasn't just the poor for whom financing got easier. The middle class could make a quick buck by flipping multiple properties. Speculation went wild. Housing prices skyrocketed. People got rich quick for virutally nothing. It was all going great until people overseas finally decided they couldn't keep make money on financial packages built on poisonous debt forever. POP!

I'm hesitant to lay the blame for this all on 'risky practices' of 'parasitic financial companies'. They played a big part - very true. But I've always said the housing problem was a THREE part problem. I list the problems here in order of culpability...

1. Government arranged the banquet and set the table.
2. Financial houses provided the food and sold the meals.
3. Stupid consumers gorged themselves on food they didn't need and couldn't afford.

Most people ONLY look at #2. I think that is a foolish & myopic approach that ignores the most important player (government) and gives a free pass to #3 (consumers).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I think that is a foolish & myopic approach that ignores the most important player (government) and gives a free pass to #3 (consumers).
Wasn't my point that some regulation is necessary and deregulation (while generally beneficial) can be harmful? You stated yourself that repeal of the Glass-Steagall act triggered a slow fuse.


Subprime mortgages are one thing - and by their very nature would be acknowledged as poor risks and treated as such. The problem could not have escalated to its eventual outcome had it not been possible for banks to rebrand (and obfuscate) these things into more innocuous packages.

(Wow, we went from healthcare to the mortgage crisis in a hurry, didn't we?)

Wasn't my point that some regulation is necessary and deregulation (while generally beneficial) can be harmful

Wasn't debating you there. I was just laying out the mortgage crisis as I see it. Some regulation is good. Glass-Steagall was a good law that kept financial houses from being insular one-stop-shops. It is an example of proper government involvement in the market (one of the few). G/S was enacted because of the Great Depression. You think we'd have learned our lesson and not messed with it...

My point was to make sure everyone does not overlook WHY G/S was repealed. Many people put sole blame for it on banks & financial houses. That is wrong. Only some financial houses (AIG particularly) wanted to do this crap, but MOST did not. The key factor was that GOVERNMENT wanted the law repealed to change the financial rules and force banks to make more loans to people who it would formerly be ILLEGAL to give loans too. Government did this thinking that it was a good thing that would create more taxpayers & wealth. Well, for a while they were right. But as we know it was unsustainable in the long run. The blame does not like wholly on banks. They were just operating in the environment that government created. Good banks didn't undertake too much risk, but with competitors making money hand over fist in the late 90s through mid 2008 it was a tough sell.