Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Massachusetts' 41st

Newspapers and news programs around the United States are reporting on Scott Brown's victory over Martha Coakley in the election to replace deceased Senator Ted Kennedy. The New York Times is running an article entitled, "G.O.P. Senate Victory Stuns Democrats." The article states, "...his election was a sharp swing of the pendulum. The Senate seat held for nearly half a century by Mr. Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, will now be held for the next two years by a Republican who has said he supports waterboarding as an interrogation technique for terrorism suspects, opposes a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants unless they leave the country."

Questions for Discussion:

1. Senator-Elect Brown has referred to his senate seat at "the people's seat". What does this mean? Do you think that Mr. Brown really believes that his new seat is the people's seat? Why or why not?

2. Mr. Brown's pick up truck has attracted national attention, since he drove around the state during the campaign in it. Why do you think that he chose to drive around the state in his pick up truck? (He probably could have afforded a driver with a more prestigious car.)

3. Imagine that you were an advisor to President Obama. How would you recommend that he respond to Mr. Brown's victory? Remember that President Obama campaigned for Mrs. Coakley this past Sunday.

4. Perhaps Senator Kennedy knows what happened last night. If Senator Kennedy could say one thing to the American people today what do you think he would say? Why?

Questions for Younger Children and Everybody Else

1. Describe a time when you worked really hard to achieve a goal and were able to achieve it. What was the goal? What did you have to do to achieve it?

2. Do you think that every time people work hard to achieve a goal they will achieve it? Why or why not?

3. What one question would you ask President Obama if you had the opportunity to chat with him one on one?

5 comments:

  1. A better sort of question would be to ask how the people were induced to vote for someone who stands so opposed to the values frequently express3ed by voters in the state.

    How were the people of Massachusetts induced to vote so sharply against their own self-interest and affiliation, and what implication does this have for the future of democracy in a media-driven society?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Downes,

    Thank you very much for sharing these questions. (Personally, I love this kind of conversation.) In response to your questions, I wonder why you assume that a vote for Scott Brown was a vote against present self-interest and affiliation?

    I love the question, "What implication does this have for the future of democracy in a media-driven society?" I wonder if the same question could have been asked about the election of 1960 in which John F. Kennedy beat Richard M. Nixon, in part because of the looks of one debate. How would the world be different today if the Republicans had won that election instead of the Democrats. Truthfully, though I am a right wing conservative, I'm a little afraid to think about the answer to that question.

    Just some thoughts in which I seem to be leaving off in mid-stream.

    ReplyDelete
  3. > why you assume that a vote for Scott Brown was a vote against present self-interest and affiliation?

    Massachusetts is well known as a Democrat state, with registered Democrats vastly outnumbering registered Republicans. So that's affiliation.

    Citizens are also in favour of policies such as universal health care, which Brown is on record as opposing. So that's self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. > I wonder if the same question could have been asked about the election of 1960 in which John F. Kennedy beat Richard M. Nixon, in part because of the looks of one debate.

    Absolutely. It was asked, a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  5. > How would the world be different today if the Republicans had won that election instead of the Democrats.

    Well, I'm sure you know what I think the result would have been - big radioactive holes where new York, Washington and Los Angeles used to be.

    ReplyDelete