.gif) Les Cohortes Célestes ont le devoir et le regret de vous informer que Libres Propos est entré en sommeil. Ce forum convivial et sympathique reste uniquement accessible en lecture seule. Prenez plaisir à le consulter.
Merci de votre compréhension. |
|
| | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise |  |
|
+6Charly Shansaa Alice jam EddieCochran Biloulou 10 participants | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 6/7/2009, 08:44 | |
| Rappel du premier message :Bonjour Biloulou  Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait! |
| | | |
| Auteur | Message |
|---|
Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 19/1/2010, 17:13 | |
| | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1825 - 19/1/2010, 20:54 | |
| Selon Rasmussen, le support pour Obamacare ne va pas en s'etoffant... 38% le plus bas a ce jour | Date | Favor | Oppose | | Jan 16-17 | 38% | 56% | | Jan 8-9 | 40% | 55% | | Jan 3 | 42% | 52% | | Dec 29 | 39% | 58% | | Dec 27 | 40% | 55% | | Dec 18-19 | 41% | 55% | | Dec 12-13 | 40% | 56% | | Dec 4-5 | 41% | 51% |
======= Au sujet de l'election au Massachusetts, au niveau national 49% esperent voir Brown gagner et seulement 34.5 % esperent que ce sera Coakley. En ce qui concerne les sondages pour les candidats de la meme election, Rasmussen donne un avantage de 2% a Coakley! Mais bon, il dit, lui aussi, que tout va dependre du pourcentage de votants. |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1826 - 19/1/2010, 22:43 | |
| Ben ca alors...
Not so fast
In a premature online Dewey beats Truman moment, boston.com today posted an online map of Massachusetts voting results declaring Attorney General Martha Coakley the winner of today’s special U.S. Senate election.
Whoops.
There’s only one problem, guys - the polls are open until 8 p.m.
“It was a test on a tool and it meant nothing. I don’t know how these things happen,” said the executive assistant to the editor of boston.com. The editor, David Beard, has yet to return a call to the Herald.
The boston.com map called the race for Coakley 50 percent to state Sen. Scott Brown’s 49 percent. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, no relation to the Kennedy clan, comes in last with a mere 1 percent.
Ouch.
The bogus map shows Coakley capturing most of eastern Massachusetts all the way to the tip of Cape Cod.
Brown was big, in the Globe’s wish map, taking the North Shore.
The map is now down - at least until the real results come in after 8 p.m.
UPDATE: Bob Powers, vice president of communications for the Globe, blamed the goof on the Associated Press. Here’s his statement:
"AP was testing an election data feed to its Massachusetts clients. During corresponding tests at our end, the feed of AP’s hypothetical test data was inadvertently posted for a few minutes on a single subsection page within our site. As soon as the error was discovered, it was removed. We regret the mishap." |
| | | | Zed
 Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 59
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1828 - 19/1/2010, 23:25 | |
| Ben quoa Zed? J'attendais ce que vous etiez parti chercher!
C'est quoi des dards, Zed? (a moins que vos doigts n'aient fourche et que vous vouliez ecrire darts, auquel cas je sais ce que c'est) |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1829 - 19/1/2010, 23:42 | |
| C'est assez incroyable, tout de meme, je me demande pourquoi les elus Republicains s'embetent a rester a D.C.
Aujourd'hui, le VPOTUS convoquent des elus a la Maison Blanche pour discuter de la creation d'une commission qui incluerait des Republicains Rrrroooh! Celle-ci serait chargee de s'occuper des problemes fiscaux du pays. Evidemment, ils sont tous Democrates (j'en ai compte 10)! On croit rever! C'est la maternelle.
THE WHITEBOARD
QUICK HUDDLE: A group of Democratic lawmakers will meet with Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday to discuss creating a bipartisan debt commission that will tackle the nation’s growing fiscal troubles.
Attendees include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Rep. John Spratt (D-SC), Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).
The meeting will start at 5 p.m. at the White House. -- Kendra Marr |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1830 - 20/1/2010, 00:04 | |
| Heureusement qu'on en parle avant les resultats, certains pourraient dire si Coakley gagne que Brown est un mauvais perdant. Le nom de personnes decedees toujours sur les listes de votants. Ca pourrait ajouter au retard de la prise de position du nouveau senateur, un avantage important en cette periode ou Obamacare continue a avoir besoin de ses 60 votes Democrates au Senat... Updated January 19, 2010Watchdog Group Raises Concern About Dead Voters on Massachusetts RollsFOXNews.com A conservative watchdog group on Tuesday blasted the Massachusetts secretary of state for dismissing concerns about the thousands of dead voters potentially on the rolls as living voters head to the polls in the high-stakes special election for U.S. Senate. - Spoiler:
Though one study reportedly found as many as 116,000 dead voters on the rolls in the state, William Galvin, who oversees elections, said the dead voters are removed from the voter lists.
"These are conservative groups who don't know anything about this state," he said, according to The Boston Herald. But Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson said Galvin should take the issue much more seriously considering the weight of Tuesday's special election. "Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin has chosen to ridicule those concerned" about the dead voters on the rolls, he said in a written statement. "With so much at stake in his state and throughout the nation in today's election, one would expect him to be more serious and less cynical. After all, it's his job." Americans for Limited Government was referring to a study conducted in October by data firm Aristotle International Inc. that found more than 16 million registered voters had either died or moved. Massachusetts had a particularly high number. CNSNews.com reported that the Bay State had 116,483 dead registered voters, and 538,567 registered voters who had moved away from their listed addresses. The data apparently did not reflect end-of-year purges that states sometimes do to get rid of the excess names. But the Herald reported that one conservative group was stirring concern by suggesting Coakley supporters and liberal groups like ACORN could pose as dead people to vote for the Democratic candidate. "We guard the rights of voters here," Galvin said. Ooooohhhh! 
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1831 - 20/1/2010, 00:23 | |
| Ca ne va pas en s'arrangeant. Si Obamacare passe imposant aux Americains de s'assurer, le Procureur General de Floride (entre autres) deposera plainte. Updated January 19, 2010Florida Attorney General Threatens Lawsuit Against Health Care MandateFOXNews.com Making a delicately nuanced argument about the U.S. Constitution, former Republican congressman and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said Tuesday that provisions to force Americans to buy health care or pay a fine are not legal and he will file a lawsuit if they become law. - Spoiler:
In a memo sent to the House and Senate leadership, the attorney general called the mandate requiring Americans to get health care a "living tax" that unconstitutionally penalizes people for being inactive. "Never before has Congress compelled Americans, under threat of government fines or taxes, to purchase an unwanted product or service simply as a constitution of existing in the country (a 'living tax')," McCollum wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., Minority Leader Mitch McCollum, R-Ky., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Pa., and Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. According to the attorney general, a citizen's choice not to buy health insurance cannot rationally be construed as economic activity subject to the Commerce Clause. "The Commerce Clause gives no authority for Congress to transform a citizen's individual choice to be inactivein the marketplace into a compulsion to purchase apparently unwanted insurance or be penalized," he wrote. McCollum also said that taxes that are directly applied across the citizenry have to be "apportioned by the population of each state." McCollum wrote that as attorney general of Florida he is in a position to file suit. "While affected citizens of every state may pursue judicial relief from the individual mandate provisions, states have standing to sue the federal government to protect their sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests," he wrote. etc...
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1832 - 20/1/2010, 00:28 | |
| |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1833 - 20/1/2010, 00:32 | |
| |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1834 - 20/1/2010, 03:58 | |
| "Clobbered", "Astounding," "dramatic," "repudiation," "stunning," "Political world off its axis." Man, oh man, oh man!!! 52 - 47! Updated January 19, 2010Republican Scott Brown Wins Massachusetts Senate Seat FOXNews.com In a victory few thought possible just a month ago, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley Tuesday in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy -- a win that could grind President Obama's agenda to a halt and portend huge losses for Democrats in the November midterms.- Spoiler:
Coakley has called Brown to concede. With 88 percent of precincts reporting, returns show Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.
The victory marks a stunning upset in a race thought to be safe for Democrats until Brown's campaign began to surge just weeks ago. And it has powerful ramifications for Obama's agenda.
The GOP state senator, once sworn in, will break the Democrats' 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in Washington. This creates problems for proposed legislation ranging from financial regulatory reform to cap-and-trade, but most immediately Brown's win sends Democrats into a scramble to pass health care reform before he arrives in Washington. Democrats were already weighing options for how to fast-track the bill before polls closed Tuesday.
Brown's margin of victory is significant, making it difficult for any potential challenges to slow down his certification as the winner. The state senator becomes the first Republican to be elected to the Senate from the Bay State since 1972.
Considering how much was on the line, Brown's late-in-the-game surge commanded the attention of the Democratic Party establishment, which dispatched top officials over the past week to try to keep the seat formerly held by Kennedy in Democratic hands. Voter interest in the race for U.S. Senate also seemed high throughout the day. Poll workers reported a steady stream of voters at the ballot box despite the snow. Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin was predicting turnout could be as high as 50 percent.
The two candidates were far apart on the issues, but even in this heavily Democratic state Brown built an insurgent campaign that started resonating with voters at just the right time.
Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1 in the state -- 37 percent of registered voters are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 51 percent are unaffiliated. Obama won the state by 26 percentage points in the 2008 presidential election.
Brown's campaign marked an upset just by being as competitive as it was against Coakley's.
The campaigns had been inundated with help from outside the state. Obama and former President Bill Clinton both came to campaign rallies for Coakley, and Obama appeared in a television ad. Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., pitched in by having his campaign team make phone calls to get people out to the polls.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington also "emptied out the building" of staff to send nearly everyone to Massachusetts to help Brown get out the vote. The NRSC reportedly quietly shifted $500,000 to help Brown's campaign in the last two weeks.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, contacted his extensive and valuable fundraising lists on behalf of Brown last week. Independent tea party organizations were also offering phone banking support to Brown.
Lt. Gov. Tim Murray noted that the race closed its 15-point gap in recent weeks because of the increased attention but Republicans have typically run close races in the state despite a 3-1 Democratic to Republican voter registration gap.
"You can't take any election for granted in Massachusetts, probably, or anywhere around the country these days," he said.
Indeed, the swift rise of Brown, a relatively low-profile Republican state senator, in his race against the state attorney general has spooked Democrats who had considered the seat one of their most reliable.
Kennedy, who died in August, held the post for 47 years.
Brown tried to turn Democrats' expectation of an easy win to his advantage, proclaiming, "It's not the Kennedy seat, it's the people's seat."
Fox News' Trish Turner, Molly Line and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
It's not the Kennedy seat, it's the people's seat! |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1836 - 20/1/2010, 04:46 | |
| The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care billBy CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN & PATRICK O'CONNOR | 1/19/10 9:33 PM EST Republican Scott Brown's upset win in Massachusetts threatened to derail hopes of passing a health reform bill this year, as the White House and Democratic leaders faced growing resistance Tuesday night from rank-and-file members to pressing ahead quickly with a bill following the Bay State backlash. Photo: AP - Spoiler:
Democratic leaders and the White House insisted ahead of the vote they aren’t preparing to desert health care. They admit they’ll have to come up with a new strategy to win passage, but said they didn’t want to allow one Senate race to take them off-course on the president’s top legislative item for the year. *1
But several House members said Tuesday night that they had no interest in pursuing the most likely scenario for moving ahead with a bill — approving the already-passed Senate version of health reform in the House – and some said President Barack Obama should step back and start over.
In fact, early signs of split emerged as the polls closed in Massachusetts – between leaders like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer who said “the Senate bill is better than nothing,” and individual members who didn’t want to swallow the Senate’s version of health reform whole.
And with the winning majority for a health reform bill in the House so thin, almost any defections at this point would be fatal to reform’s prospects.
"The only way to go forward is to take a step back. If there isn't any recognition that we got the message and we are trying to recalibrate and do things differently, we are not only going to risk looking ignorant but arrogant,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), one of the leading advocates for health reform in the House.
"I don't think it would be the worst thing to take a step back and say we are going to pivot to do a jobs thing" and include elements of health care reform in it, he said.
Brown’s victory means that Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate, and Democrats are increasingly reluctant to try to ram through a revised reform package in the roughly two weeks before he takes office.
Democrats are floating the idea of a two-step process – passing the Senate bill in the House in step one, then passing a second “clean-up” bill to fix the things in the Senate bill that House members don’t like. The Senate then would have to pass the clean-up bill in a reconciliation process – meaning it would only need 51 votes.
But the deep resistance to the Senate bill among many House members shows that even this legislative tactic would be difficult to pull off.
"If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don't hear a lot of support on our side for that bill,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)
Lynch was even skeptical of the two-step scenario. “I've heard that theory but I don't know if it works," he said. "The problem is this we are spending almost a trillion dollars and folks are telling me I should vote yes and we will fix it later. You wouldn't buy a car for a trillion dollars and say yeah, it doesn't run but we will fix it later."
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) said, "I don't put as much stock into what happens in Massachusetts.
It's what we negotiated in the House. We were fully expecting to go some kind of conference committee and work out those differences. And there are still differences to work out. I cannot imagine, from one person, one member from Indiana, that this House would accept the Senate bill as is."
As the early results poured in, House leaders and the three chairmen with jurisdiction over the bill walked their colleagues through changes that had been negotiated with the White House and Senate – but barely mentioning the political meltdown in the Massachusetts.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told colleagues that the three parties were close to an agreement on adding a new Medicare tax on unearned income for individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples who earn more than $250,000, people present said. On a normal night, that would amount to big news.
On Tuesday, it was a sidebar to the drama resolving itself in Massachusetts.
Weiner said the tone of the caucus meeting was "whistling past the graveyard."
After the caucus, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said of the bill: "The reports of its death – as Mark Twain would say - have been exaggerated."
He downplayed the negative comments from members, saying they routinely leave caucus meetings and declare it dead.
"Everytime we come out of a caucus, everyone pronounces the bill dead or it's not going to pass," Larson said.
Earlier Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that House Democrats are still "right on course" with the health care reform bill, regardless of what happens in the Massachusetts special election. She also said she has not been pressured by the White House to simply accept the Senate bill.
"In spite of all the activity that I know you're aware of in Massachusetts and the rest, we're still on course to resolving the differences between the House and the Senate bill. And we have revenue and investment issues that were sent to the CBO already, and now we're dealing with some of the policy issues. So we're right on course, and we will have a health care reform bill," Pelosi said.
House Republican Leader John Boehner fired back, with spokesman Michael Steel saying, “Regardless of what happens in Massachusetts, it’s clear that jamming this government takeover of health care through Congress will set off a political firestorm. The American people are screaming, ‘stop’ at the top of their lungs, and out-of-touch Democratic leaders ignore them at their peril.”
Despite the deep misgivings of rank-and-file members, a decision to abandon health care reform would contradict every major rationale offered by the president and congressional Democrats as to why they pushed so hard for it over the last year.
Before Tuesday, Obama and congressional Democrats were actually on the verge of passing a major overhaul of the health care system that has eluded generations of presidents and lawmakers. Giving up on it now might appear reasonable from a political standpoint in light of a Massachusetts defeat, but some Democrats fear they will look back at some point and regret deserting the bill given how far along they actually were.
The move would also run counter to the reputed ethos of the Obama White House, which regards itself as taking the long view and not reacting to every development. Plus, Obama and Democrats have argued they cannot solve the nation’s budgetary problems before dealing with health care.
Those policy challenges will still be present after the polls close in Massachusetts, Democrats argue.
"For a lot of us it is our second round, and the most important thing is we know we will never get this economy under any kind of control until we get health care costs under control," Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said. "We're not doing this to aggravate people."
From a political standpoint, the White House will argue that Democrats own the bill either way.
Most members of Congress have already for voted for the legislation, so they should take this last push to get it over the finish line and have a product to tout at the end -- rather than failure.
But under the most-discussed scenario, the White House and Senate leaders would need to convince a skeptical House to trust them – that the Senate will approve the same set of changes as part of a reconciliation bill. With relations between the House and Senate strained, at best, it will be a tough lift, aides said.
But if the alternative is no bill at all, Democrats may have little choice.
*1 Pour rappel, dans le pays 49% souhaitaient voir Brown gagner et seulement 32.5% Coakley
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1838 - 20/1/2010, 05:26 | |
| ABCRepublican Scott Brown Defeats Democrat Martha Coakley in Mass. Senate Race
Democrats Lose Super Majority in Senate; Brown Supporters Chant 'John Kerry's Next' ========== CBSGOP's Scott Brown Wins Mass. Senate Race
GOP Candidate, a Dark Horse a Month Ago, Represents Crucial 41st Senate Vote for Republicans
========== CNN 
Stunning election result imperils U.S. health reformRepublican Scott Brown scores an upset victory in an election with high-stakes implications on U.S. President Barack Obama's health-care reform proposals. ========== FOXNews
AP In a stunning loss for Democrats and a dramatic victory for the GOP, Republican Scott Brown wins the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. | LIVESHOTS========== Houston ChronicleRepublican Scott Brown wins Senate race In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Brown's victory leaves President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt. 4:53 AM========== LA TimesCharles Krupa / Associated Press
Republican Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate seat
By James Oliphant and Mark Z. Barabak | 7:15 p.m.
In a stunning blow to Democrats, Scott Brown defeated state Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley to end the party's half-century grip on the Senate seat once held by Edward M. Kennedy. Brown leads by 52 percent to 47 percent with all but 3 percent of precincts counted.
Massachusetts: Revolt of the middle... |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1839 - 20/1/2010, 05:44 | |
| National Journal Brown Wins, Robs Dems Of Filibuster-Proof Majority
The Democratic majority has been scrambling to make contingency plans and avoid a GOP filibuster. 
• How Some Dems Could Benefit
• MORE: Hotline On Call ========== National Review==========msnbcPoliticsCharles Krupa / AP GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate raceRepublican victory leaves Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt. Full story | Video: ‘The people’s seat’.... Poll: Skepticism of Obama policiesOnly 35 percent confident of his goals, NBC/WSJ survey finds. Story========== PoliticoBay State bombshell: GOP wins Senate specialBrown pulls off historic upsetBy ALEXANDER BURNS | 1/19/10 11:26 PM EST Scott Brown won a stunning victory over Martha Coakley in Massachusetts Tuesday night. | AP Photo Close =========== ReutersUpset in Massachusetts, now what? The election of a Republican senator from Massachusetts puts President Obama's ambitious agenda at increased risk. Full Article ========== The Huffington PostWAKE UP CALLREPUBLICAN SCOTT BROWN WINS IN MASSACHUSETTSWATCH: COAKLEY'S SPEECH... SEE RESULTS... INSIDE THE SPIN WARCoakley Pollster: White House Hurt Us By Not Taking On Wall Street... Wall Street Rallies On Possible Health Care Failure... Sen. Franken: Health Care Will Pass No Matter What ========== The New York Timesa fait un choix "interessant" de photo..... Christopher Capozziello for The New York TimesScott Brown addressed supporters in Boston on Tuesday night.Democrats Stunned by Rebuke to Party By MICHAEL COOPER 2 minutes ago Scott Brown, a little-known Republican state senator, upset the Democrat, Martha Coakley, in the race to fill the Senate seat that was long held by Edward M. Kennedy in Massachusetts. ========== The Wall Street Journal (edition europeenne) Pas un mot ========== The Washington PostBrown upsets Coakley in Massachusetts race Brown wins Mass. Senate race PHOTO GALLERY | State Sen. Scott Brown wins a remarkable upset victory over state Attorney General Martha Coakley.Video: Democrats vow health reform44: Brown supporters revel in victory
Election dramatically alters the trajectory of Obama's agenda
While a historic win within Massachusetts for the GOP, the implications of Brown's victory for the national political scene are even more critical.
Paul Kane and Karl Vick
The Fix: Multitude of repercussions, large and smallSketch: Gibbs's wisecrack answers come in waves 
Democrats ponder health reform
Unless leaders can thread a narrow legislative needle, Brown's victory could lead to bill's collapse.
Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Pearlstein: Race not a referendum on health reform
Brown showed a winning way
Victory may well have less to do with ideology and more to do with old-fashioned retail politics. 
Lois Romano
Coakley argued her case and lost in Senate race========== etc.... et ce qui est extraordinaire, c'est que cette victoire ne peut pas etre detournee, car avec 11 ou 12% (selon qui vous lisez) de l'electorat Republicain tout le reste de ceux qui ont vote pour lui sont independants (avec un petit pourcentage de Democrates). Alors difficile de faire de la recuperation politique dans ce cas. Bon, bien sur, il y a toujours le NYTimes et ses insinuations par photo interposee et d'autres trouveront des excuses mais bon, les faits sont les faits! Hier, je parlais sur skype avec une personne qui m'est tres proche et il me disait qu'il avait ete particulierement vexe lorsque le POTUS avait demande que l'on vote pour Oakley par "decence". Il faudrait qu'il fasse un peu plus attention a ce qu'il dit le POTUS ou bien il n'a pas vu la fin des Massachusetts.... |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1840 - 20/1/2010, 14:29 | |
| ANUARY 19, 2010, 11:01 P.M. ET Boston Tea PartyMassachusetts voters tell Democrats to shelve ObamaCare.'It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." —Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789. Two hundred and twenty-one years later, the sage of Monticello has been proven right again. Aroused and well-informed by a year of watching a liberal majority go very far wrong, Massachusetts voters handed a Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for 47 years to Republican Scott Brown, a little known state senator from Wrenthem.- Spoiler:
The resounding five-point victory in one of America's most liberal states is an upset heard 'round Washington—and one that ought to force Democrats to rethink their entire agenda, national health care in particular. Despite an 11th-hour intervention by President Obama in a state he carried with ease only 14 months ago, state Attorney General Martha Coakley was routed even in such unlikely tea-party outposts as Andover (58%) and amid a large turnout for a midwinter special election.***Democratic delusionists are already attributing Mrs. Coakley's defeat solely to her weaknesses as a candidate, and those were real enough (Curt Schilling, "Yankee fan"). But the last time the Bay State elected a Republican to the Senate was 1972, and a mere 15% of state voters now belong to the GOP. Mr. Brown won because moderates and independents swarmed to him, and because he had the wit and nerve to make the race a referendum on Democratic policies in Washington.
Associated Press Scott Brown
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 20/1/2010, 22:16 | |
| Saudi Teen Lashed for Phone in Class
A 13-year-old girl is sentenced to 90 lashes and two months in prison for taking a cell phone to school |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 21/1/2010, 11:41 | |
| Dems fret: 'Every state is in play'By MANU RAJU & LISA LERER | 1/21/10 12:44 AM EST  The GOP victory in Massachusetts has set liberal and moderate Democrats worrying that they'll fall next to voters' anger. Photo: AP photo composite by POLITICO
- Spoiler:
“If there’s anybody in this building that doesn’t tell you they’re more worried about elections today, you absolutely should slap them,” said Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter discontent to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the race for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. Republicans moved quickly to capitalize Wednesday, with National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) telling POLITICO that he’s approaching possible candidates who passed up his initial entreaties to join the 2010 field.
“People, I think, are going to sense opportunities that they didn’t sense” Tuesday, Cornyn said.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called the Massachusetts race a “wake-up call” for his party and said his colleagues were in a “reflective” mood at a private lunch Wednesday.
Several Democratic incumbents said later that none of the 19 Democratic seats up this year are safe — and that fundamental parts of the agenda need to be re-examined to win over voters back home.
“Every state is now in play,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who faces the toughest reelection battle of her career — most likely against wealthy Republican Carly Fiorina.
Boxer is pushing a cap-and-trade bill to control greenhouse gases, but her counterpart from California, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said a “large cap-and-trade bill isn’t going to go ahead at this time.”
“In my view, when people are earning, when their home is secure, when their children are going to school and they’re relatively satisfied with their life, then [when] there’s a problem like health care, they want it solved,” Feinstein said. “It doesn’t threaten them. The size of this bill threatens them, and that’s one of the problems that has to be straightened out.”
Asked if red-state Democrats up in 2010 and 2012 should be nervous about the electorate, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told POLITICO, “Oh, yeah.”
“I think part of the problem is the agenda itself,” said Conrad, who doesn’t face voters again until 2012. Instead of spending so much time on health care reform, Conrad said Democrats should have focused first on reducing the national debt and a bipartisan energy bill — and that President Barack Obama should have done a better job of explaining that the economic situation he inherited was “far worse” than he’d originally thought.
Other Democrats argued that they mishandled the health care bill, whose prospects have been seriously diminished with Brown’s victory.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), also up in 2012, said Democrats made a mistake by allowing bipartisan negotiations in the Senate Finance Committee to extend into the fall, saying that the lag time allowed the GOP to mischaracterize Democrats’ attempts to reform the health care system.
“What we didn’t do right in the past, I want to make sure we do right in the future,” said Brown, one of the more liberal members of the Democratic Caucus. “The health care bill should have been passed in September. There was much more public support, and the slow walk of the Finance Committee caused all this opposition by all the mischaracterizations of what the bill was about.”
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the more conservative members of the caucus, said some in the Democratic Party were “overreaching” and “advocating more government” than her constituents want.
She blamed House Democrats for advancing liberal proposals that skewed the public’s perception of more moderate measures moving through the Senate.
“Senators represent broad constituencies,” she said. “With all due respect to members of the House, their constituencies are very narrow views, very homogenous usually. Mine aren’t.”
But Democratic leaders urged calm Wednesday, even as they told candidates to prepare for battle in the next 10 months.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said a January special election in Massachusetts isn’t a “bellwether for everything.”
“We can see how the tide can turn in 10 months,” Menendez said, adding that he plans to have a “forensic exam of all our candidates and campaigns.”
Menendez said the party has already learned one lesson from Coakley’s losing campaign in Massachusetts: Democrats have got to be aggressive, defining both themselves and opponents early on — and frame the debate well before Republicans do.
Menendez also said his party has to “find a way to engage independent voters in a meaningful way,” and he suggested that a focus on Obama’s proposed “financial crisis responsibility fee” might be a way to do that.
And, he said, Democrats “cannot give up that mantle” of change.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who faces voters in the fall, said his state doesn’t take its “cue” from voters in Massachusetts. But he said that all candidates have to take their races seriously.
“Anyone that takes any race for granted shouldn’t be in politics, at any time,” Feingold said. “To me, that’s foreign language — I take every single race very seriously.
Democrats know that independents’ frustration with the economy and the lack of progress on legislative solutions are hardly limited to Massachusetts.
“People in our states want us to deal with the economy, with jobs,” said Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin. “All of us are going to be subject to that type of anger.”
And Republicans may not be protected just because they have an “R” after their names.
“I think everybody has everything to worry about,” said Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is up in 2010 and could face conservative former Rep. J.D. Hayworth in a primary this year.
“The challenge will be — and this is the same challenge Clinton faced — how adept and adroit will he be in adapting to a fast-changing culture,” said Begala, who believes Obama’s promise to bring post-partisan change to Washington was a big mistake that showed “a real misreading about recent history.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, an old nemesis of Clinton’s, said the Obama team did not get that 2008 was what he calls “a performance election.”
“They misunderstood the election, and they misunderstood the rules of governing,” said Gingrich.
“By now he’s got himself in a situation where he’s in grave danger of losing the left on foreign policy and losing the right domestically and having little to no base to be governed from.”
“The Republicans failed and then the Democrats failed, so people are mad at everybody,” said Gingrich. “There was a moment when the country was prepared to look at the Democrats and say, ‘Republicans have been so disappointing; maybe you can do this.’ I think there was a lot of positive momentum for Obama a year ago.”
This sounds like hypocrisy to many Democratic ears, since Republicans made it clear from nearly Day One that they saw little advantage in compromise with Obama and followed with a series of nearly unanimous party-line votes against his agenda.
“Republicans have decided that Obama’s failure is their only path to success,” said Democratic strategist Bob Shrum.
Obama may not have fully reckoned with the frequent duality of public opinion: An electorate that says in polls it favors health care reform or other public policy ideas in concept often is frightened by the details.
In his first year, Obama “ran headlong into America’s anxieties about government,” said Bruce Reed, CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council.
What’s not clear is whether another politician — or even this president with a different governing approach — could have done better. The country is simply in an ornery mood.
“With the kind of problems we have today combined with bitter partisanship and media coverage with a premium on conflict, I doubt if we’ll ever see a truly popular president again in our lifetime,” said Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, a onetime adviser to George W. Bush.
“When you raise people’s expectation for change, and then what they get is something altogether different than what they expected, combined with an economic collapse and a lot of corresponding anxiety and fear, you have a pretty good stew for revolt.”
Eamon Javers contributed to this report.
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1843 - 23/1/2010, 06:38 | |
| Rasmussen Date .......... Presidential Approv Index Strongly Appr Strongly Disappr Total Appr Total Disappr | 01/22/2010 | -18 | 25% | 43% | 45% | 54% | | 01/21/2010 | -15 | 27% | 42% | 47% | 52% | | 01/20/2010 | -12 | 28% | 40% | 48% | 51% | | 01/19/2010 | -11 | 28% | 39% | 48% | 51% | | 01/18/2010 | -12 | 27% | 39% | 47% | 52% |
========== | 01/21/2009 | +28 | 44% | 16% | 65% | 30% |
|
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1844 - 23/1/2010, 15:17 | |
| A lire de preference bien installe(e) dans sa chaise ou son fauteuil afin d'eviter d'en tomber a force de rire! Va-t-on demander a notre Gore national de rendre son Prix Nobel? (Chapeau au Comite responsable!) Il se pourrait peut-etre que son futur financier fonde comme neige au soleil!  Si ca continue comme ca, cap-and-trade ne devrait plus poser trop grand risque. (en dehors du fait que les Democrates en ont bien assez a se depatouiller de HealthCare. et ne veuillent absolument pas y toucher pour le moment). et Vive les Experts! U.N. Climate Change Expert Cites More Errors in ReportSaturday, January 23, 2010  The Indian head of the U.N. climate change panel defended his position Friday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.
- Spoiler:
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible. “I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times of London in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.” The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.Pachauri said that the IPCC’s report was the responsibility of the panel’s co-chairs at the time, both of whom have since moved on. They were Dr. Martin Parry, a British scientist now at Imperial College London, and Dr. Osvaldo Canziani, an Argentine meteorologist. Neither was immediately available for comment. “I don’t want to blame them, but typically the working group reports are managed by the Co-Chairs,” Pachauri said. “Of course the Chair is there to facilitate things, but we have substantial amounts of delegation.” He declined to blame the 25 authors and editors of the erroneous part of the report, who included a Filipino, a Mongolian, a Malaysian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Australian and two Vietnamese. The “co-ordinating lead authors” were Rex Victor Cruz of the Philippines, Hideo Harasawa of Japan, Murari Lal of India and Wu Shaohong of China. But Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist erroneously quoted as making the 2035 prediction, said that responsibility had to lie with them. “It is the lead authors — blame goes to them,” he told The Times. “There are many mistakes in it. It is a very poorly made report.” He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas. Professor Hasnain, who was not involved in drafting the IPCC report, said that he noticed some of the mistakes when he first read the relevant section in 2008. That was also the year he joined The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is headed by Dr Pachauri.He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date. He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time. “I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?” Pachauri also said he did not learn about the mistakes until they were reported in the media about 10 days ago, at which time he contacted other IPCC members. He denied keeping quiet about the errors to avoid disrupting the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen, or discouraging funding for TERI’s own glacier program.
Le probleme de debit n'etant pas encore resolu ( faut bien...) je laisse ceux qui sont interesses par le restant de l'article (ou qui ont envie de continuer de rire) cliquer pour l'obtenir sur le site du Times de Londres: Click here to read more on this story from The Times of London. |
| | | | Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 59
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 23/1/2010, 15:32 | |
| Je préconise que, sans trop vouloir être avangardiste, que le monde est a charge la santé de nos policiers mondiaux, c'est a dire les ricains.
Il est de la plus haute importance, que les ricains aient une assurance santé, c'est de la logique sémantique.
La gratuité dans les soins de santé, qu'elle vienne des démocrates ou des républicains, je m'en contre fiche royalement, l'important c'est, que celà ce fasse.
Je serais parcontre, pour une contribution mondiale du monde libre. | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 23/1/2010, 15:37 | |
| - ¥_zed_¥ a écrit:
- Je préconise que, sans trop vouloir être avangardiste, que le monde est a charge la santé de nos policiers mondiaux, c'est a dire les ricains.
Il est de la plus haute importance, que les ricains aient une assurance santé, c'est de la logique sémantique.
La gratuité dans les soins de santé, qu'elle vienne des démocrates ou des républicains, je m'en contre fiche royalement, l'important c'est, que celà ce fasse.
Je serais parcontre, pour une contribution mondiale du monde libre. Quoi? Vous avez suivi ce qui s'est passe mardi dernier, Zed? D'apres vous, les soins de sante sont gratuits au Canada?  |
| | | | Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 59
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 23/1/2010, 15:44 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- ¥_zed_¥ a écrit:
- Je préconise que, sans trop vouloir être avangardiste, que le monde est a charge la santé de nos policiers mondiaux, c'est a dire les ricains.
Il est de la plus haute importance, que les ricains aient une assurance santé, c'est de la logique sémantique.
La gratuité dans les soins de santé, qu'elle vienne des démocrates ou des républicains, je m'en contre fiche royalement, l'important c'est, que celà ce fasse.
Je serais parcontre, pour une contribution mondiale du monde libre.
Quoi?
Vous avez suivi ce qui s'est passe mardi dernier, Zed? Pas vraiment, j'étais au travaille, (m'enfin, trop préoccupé) 
S'il vous êtes possible, m'en faire un résumé 
Que voulez vous, je ne respire pas sur le même beat que la police  | |
| | | | Invité
Invité
| | Sujet: 1848 - 23/1/2010, 15:54 | |
| What Scott Borwn's win means for the DemocratsCharles Krauthammer
Friday, January 22, 2010
On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health-care reform. "If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."
- Spoiler:
The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health-care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.
After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.
And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.
Bull's-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to a Rasmussen poll, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.
Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.
These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are [i]not unionized.
The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.
The evidence was unmistakable. Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.
Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago -- something is going on beyond personality.
That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see is in your own interest.
Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?
"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."
I say: Let them sleep.
OK, Zed, des que j'aurai une minute, mais bon cet article que j'allais poste de toute facon devrait vous donner une idee! |
| | | | Zed
Nombre de messages : 16907
Age : 59
Localisation : Longueuil, Québec, Canada, Amérique du nord, planète Terre, du système solaire Galarneau de la voie lactée
Date d'inscription : 13/11/2008
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise 23/1/2010, 16:09 | |
| - Sylvette a écrit:
- What Scott Borwn's win means for the Democrats
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, January 22, 2010
On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health-care reform. "If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."
- Spoiler:
The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health-care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.
After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.
And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.
Bull's-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to a Rasmussen poll, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.
Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.
These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are [i]not unionized.
The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.
The evidence was unmistakable. Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.
Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago -- something is going on beyond personality.
That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see is in your own interest.
Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?
"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."
I say: Let them sleep.
OK, Zed, des que j'aurai une minute, mais bon cet article que j'allais poste de toute facon devrait vous donner une idee! Ô vous savez, des idées j'en ai, mais c'est les idéaux qui me font souvent défauts. | |
| | | | Contenu sponsorisé
| | Sujet: Re: Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
| |
| | | | | | Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise | |
|
Sujets similaires | |
|
| | Permission de ce forum: | Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
| |
| |
| |
|
Scott Brown won a stunning victory over Martha Coakley in Massachusetts Tuesday night. | AP Photo 
Total Massachusetts Precincts: 99% Reporting
