When a father walked in on his son being molested, the father punched the molester and retrieved his child. Coakley's response?
Quote
"We can't have people taking the law into their own hands. The father should have waited for the police."
Her grasp on foreign policy is astute:
Quote
During a January 11 debate at the University of Massachusetts, after the moderator asked Coakley how the United States can succeed in Afghanistan, she replied that she was "not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was -- and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They're gone. They're not there anymore."
Although she does say (kinda like Palin's claim to being "close to Russia) that visiting her sister overseas prepares her for the intracicies of dealing with international issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZRzsFjykGA
Also, it looks like she hired the same PR firm Dewey used..
(http://www.cassyfiano.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/coakley-mass.jpg)
Nobody is expected to know how to spell words correctly anymore. Are you trying to destroy their self-esteem?
Here is a video of a Coakley supporter (allegedly) admitting he was paid to attend an event:
Also, at the end of that event it is alleged that a Coakley staffer shoved down a reporter.
Is Coakley the new Palin? We won't know until she quits in the middle of her first term to do a book tour.
In ERs, Catholics need not apply:
This ad, brought to you by the likes of usruf & wevsus:
Quote from: guido911 on January 15, 2010, 07:50:41 AM
In ERs, Catholics need not apply:
Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms, we should let guidance counselors know.
Quote from: sgrizzle on January 15, 2010, 09:52:00 AM
Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms, we should let guidance counselors know.
I've been thinking about this. Why don't we just shut down St. Francis & St. John's and all other evil Catholic medical institutions, that way we will not have to worry about conscientious refusals to provide care.
Hey, isn't that candidate a former Playgirl fold out male model?
Change has come to America....
I actually liked Paul Cellucci back when I lived in beantown.
Didn't agree with him on some issues, but found myself agreeing with him more often than the Dem.
Massachusetts Republicans and Oklahoma Democrats aren't that far apart....
Oh..... "is Coakley the blue Palin?"
Nope.
If it weren't for the ghost of Ted Kennedy, Coakley would already be toast...
Quote from: USRufnex on January 15, 2010, 12:22:35 PM
I actually liked Paul Cellucci back when I lived in beantown.
Didn't agree with him on some issues, but found myself agreeing with him more often than the Dem.
Massachusetts Republicans and Oklahoma Democrats aren't that far apart....
Oh..... "is Coakley the blue Palin?"
Nope.
If it weren't for the ghost of Ted Kennedy, Coakley would already be toast...
THERE'S A TED KENNEDY GHOST? HIDE YOUR SCOTCH!
Coakley is a smart woman, she's an Attorney General. She knows the law and she knows politics. Her only problem is that she is also very liberal. This does not make her bad, it just makes her more likely to make liberal comments.
Typically in elections, liberals move further to the middle to be successful and conservatives move further to the right. Liberals that shift their views to a more centrist tone are far more effective than their fringe counterparts. Conversely, conservatives that embrace centrist ideas tend to alienate their base and jeopardize their integrity. We saw this in the last election.
Coakley is attempting to run with the liberal mantle of Ted Kennedy without a centrist shift. This opens her to speak her mind, and her mind is liberal.
"We need to get taxes up!" This is a standard liberal mantra, however the majority of her constituents are hurting and MA has a huge number of small business owners. Running on a platform of raising taxes will not be helpful to any candidate during this economic cycle no matter how left-leaning the state is. This comment is what I think sealed her fate.
"We believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore." Again, this reflects a standard liberal thought process. . . once a threat is out of sight, it is time to devote attention to social issues. This has been a good policy for the left recently (during the Bush years), however, as seen last week with Afghanistan, it tends to backfire politically in times of more relaxed security policy.
Ideologically she is following her heart. She is not campaigning. I admire her for running on principal rather than re-inventing herself for an election. However this will not be an election a liberal can win.
Apparently Curt Schilling is now a Yankee fan. Huh? Gasman, is this another product of Coakley being a liberal or just plain, ol' fashion idiocy.
MA is usually a very liberal state and Kennedy's old seat should be reliably blue but Coakley's tin ear and the fact that her campaign, for whatever reason, got a very late start hasn't helped her. Couple that with a general malaise amongst democratic voters along with the standard trend away from the majority party in midterms elections and you have what's shaping up to be an unsettling squeaker for dems.
I don't think that her ideology is a liability. This is MA, after all. If she was in PA, ok, I'd agree, but she's not. She's a liberal trying to represent a liberal district. She's battling her own personal unappeal/disorganization and some macro trends, but her ideology isn't the problem.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 15, 2010, 04:20:38 PM
"We need to get taxes up!" This is a standard liberal mantra, however the majority of her constituents are hurting and MA has a huge number of small business owners. Running on a platform of raising taxes will not be helpful to any candidate during this economic cycle no matter how left-leaning the state is. This comment is what I think sealed her fate.
Coakley:
"We need to get people back to work. We need to get taxes up, and we'll start to chip away at that deficit, because individuals and the country, my colleague in California Jerry Brown said, we've all been spending too much money we don't have on stuff we don't need." Coakley went on to say:
"[H]ow do we get you back to work, and how do we bring that deficit down? Ultimately by being more careful on how we're spending our money as a country and as individuals. We can do it. We've done it before."Don't tell me what a "standard liberal mantra" is and isn't..... starts to remind me of circa 1999 Eddie Gaylord and The Daily Oklahoman, with their mind-numbing insistence that every national dem is a pinko-commie liberal...
"I'm always encouraging my students to read newspapers," says former Oklahoman city editor Randy Splaingard, a journalism professor at Oklahoma City University, "but I never require that they read the Oklahoman. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment."Wall Street Journal advances distortion of Coakley's remarks on taxes to promote GOP attackhttp://mediamatters.org/research/201001110020
There's more than one way to "get taxes up." And no, she's not running on that as a "mantra."
One way is to "get taxes up" is to actually raise taxes.... another is to find ways to encourage economic development which raise tax revenues.... another way to "get taxes up" is to put people back to work....
All hail the awesome power of the out-of-context soundbite!
Yeah Gaspar, don't be telling the biggest partisan hack on here what is and isn't a liberal mantra. It upsets the liberal chattering class.
... says partisan federal-governement-can-do-no-right talking points hack, the honorable Mr. Conan.
... Gaspar is the LAST PERSON who should be an authority on the subject on what is and what isn't a "liberal mantra"...
He has about as much credibility on the subject as Eddie Gaylord's Daily Oklahoman or the sports guy on KRMG who pushes his own politics....
I never thought I'd self-identify as liberal after living in Chicago and Boston.... but after moving back to Tulsa and reading some of the unmitigated rightwing crapfest on this forum.... one thing I learned from Reaganites in the 80s... stand for something or you'll fall for anything....
If you'd like, I can start talking about what is and what isn't a conservative mantra.... would you like that? :D
Question: How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer #1: Two, one to do it and one to steady the chandelier.
Answer #2: None, they only screw the poor
Quote from: USRufnex on January 17, 2010, 12:31:14 PM
If you'd like, I can start talking about what is and what isn't a conservative mantra.... would you like that? :D
Yes. . . That would be interesting.
Wow! The combination of Coakley's 11th hour campaigning and Obama's visit has boosted Brown by nearly 10%.
She sucks....ruined any enthusiasm by running as a conservadim. Independents have the fear of socialism instilled in them from the Massrepiglicants. When FOTD lived there, a black R Senator Burke reigned. And even during times of bussin' and Masshysteria...go figure.
David Sirota, writing at HuffPost, posits a possibility that a Coakley defeat would actually strengthen the hand of House progressives. If there are not 60 votes in the Senate, passing a bill would depend on the reconciliation process. Since that only takes 51 votes, 8 conservadims could just be left out and some of the good stuff in the house bill, like a public option and the tax on the rich, could be added back in. The progressive caucus is the largest in the House so they might pull it off. Hope springs eternal.
Quote from: FOTD on January 18, 2010, 04:06:06 PM
She sucks....ruined any enthusiasm by running as a conservadim. Independents have the fear of socialism instilled in them from the Massrepiglicants. When FOTD lived there, a black R Senator Burke reigned. And even during times of bussin' and Masshysteria...go figure.
David Sirota, writing at HuffPost, posits a possibility that a Coakley defeat would actually strengthen the hand of House progressives. If there are not 60 votes in the Senate, passing a bill would depend on the reconciliation process. Since that only takes 51 votes, 8 conservadims could just be left out and some of the good stuff in the house bill, like a public option and the tax on the rich, could be added back in. The progressive caucus is the largest in the House so they might pull it off. Hope springs eternal.
That's some analysis. I'm impressed . . .and a bit dizzy.
I appreciate your optimism.
Competition is always good, especially in politics, where power has the ability to corrupt even the most pious of intensions. The majority held by the democrats has done more to damage to the party it seems.
I join you in your hopes for a Brown victory tomorrow. Do you feel that your position is representative of other liberals in Mass?
Quote from: Gaspar on January 18, 2010, 04:17:16 PM
That's some analysis. I'm impressed . . .and a bit dizzy.
I appreciate your optimism.
Competition is always good, especially in politics, where power has the ability to corrupt even the most pious of intensions. The majority held by the democrats has done more to damage to the party it seems.
I join you in your hopes for a Brown victory tomorrow. Do you feel that your position is representative of other liberals in Mass?
Gassie,
FOTD does not hope her in but certainly does not back another a$$hat....
Nate Silver has it a tossup, with a very good discussion why at
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
The Daily Show did a good story on this last night.
Apparently she called Curt Schilling (former Boston pitcher) a Yankees fan.
When asked if she was being too laid back in her campaign, she replied "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?"
Jon Stewart said "Let me field this one for you.... YES!"
Quotebut after moving back to Tulsa and reading some of the unmitigated rightwing crapfest on this forum....
Funny, my version goes: "but after moving to Tulsa and later reading some of the unmitigated leftwing crapfest on this forum..." As far as I can tell, this section of this forum is where Tulsa's five or six most left-leaning residents encamp for commiserate whinging.
Just heard that the exit polls are breaking at 68% to Brown, and 23% Coakley.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 19, 2010, 01:04:07 PM
Just heard that the exit polls are breaking at 68% to Brown, and 23% Coakley.
Ouch!
Now we can hear from the GOP talking heads how the DNC needs to "reinvent itself" for the next couple of years. Could be a very interesting mid-term election this year. Ted Kennedy must be arse-up in his grave right now.
Quote from: buckeye on January 19, 2010, 11:12:11 AM
Funny, my version goes: "but after moving to Tulsa and later reading some of the unmitigated leftwing crapfest on this forum..." As far as I can tell, this section of this forum is where Tulsa's five or six most left-leaning residents encamp for commiserate whinging.
I like this. Tulsa Now as the Reddest State Liberal Zoo, where all the local righties can stroll past the bars and tsk tsk at all of us benighted leftie souls, as we pick nits off each other and bemoan our powerlessness and pathetic national leadership. "Careful, kids! Stay back from the bars or they'll throw some of that commie wealth redistribution on ya!"
Of course, poor Guido's that OCD neighborhood kid who jumps the fence every morning when no one's looking to poke the liberals with the long stick he's been sharpening in the garage when his parents aren't looking.
I do have to say that, up in Chicago, our Bluest State Conservative Zoo was much bigger and more impressive than OK's. Down here it's a website; up there it's the Collar Counties.
Coakley's campaign coming unhinged:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/coakleys_office_throws_out_reporter.html
Sheesh even Coakley's volunteers are losers, resorting to calling reporters "Nazis". One has to wonder what the strategery was in running such a flawed candidate, the DNC could not have been that lax in vetting her to replace Sen. Kennedy. Then again, I suppose anything is possible considering Sen. McCain selected Gov. Palin as his running mate. ::)
Quote from: guido911 on January 19, 2010, 03:03:23 PM
Coakley's campaign coming unhinged:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/coakleys_office_throws_out_reporter.html
Lol...Sore loser's......
Quote from: guido911 on January 19, 2010, 03:03:23 PM
Coakley's campaign coming unhinged:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/19/coakleys_office_throws_out_reporter.html
Ever been to Boston?
Coakley's main problem is that enough progressives are appalled by bad government that they just want to send a message.
Okay, this is just too damned funny. Pollster Frank Luntz can't find Coakley supporters for his focus group panel.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/19/pollster-frank-luntz-having-difficulting-finding-coakley-supporters-for-focus-group-on-the-eve-of-massachusetts-senate-race/
QuoteThe problem isn't money. "They're getting paid well," Luntz says, "probably more than they're making at their jobs. And they still don't want to do it." Instead, says Luntz, they're ashamed. "They don't want to be on television defending Martha Coakley. It's passé. It's socially unacceptable. I never dreamed I'd see Democrats in Massachusetts embarrassed to admit they're Democrats."
The inevitable Hitler video:
Coakley was a flawed candidate, but once the implications of what this race meant to the Senate health care bill (otherwise referred to as the "pile") the tide turned seriously in Brown's favor. I notice this site is unusually quiet this morning in regards to the liberals who usually lurk and post here. There was a spirited debate on one member's Facebook page last night essentially denying this was any sort of referendum and that it all fell on Coakley being a terrible candidate. This is what liberal and conservative pundits (I've watched most of the election coverage on MSNBC, approximately 90% of it if I had to guess, including watching Scarborough this morning) are referring to as a "circular firing squad" regarding liberal Dims not taking seriously the underlying reasons for Brown surging late in the race.
I seriously hope that most liberals are too arrogant to understand this went much deeper than Coakley being a poor choice to replace Senator Kennedy (she was a poor choice, don't get me wrong). The electorate will show them the door in November if they are unwilling to take a more moderate approach to healthcare and get more concerned about more pressing issues like unemployment, soaring deficits, wasteful spending, and bilking the American voter and taxpayer much quicker than a Bernie Madoff wet dream.
Some telling stats were passed around post election. President Obama's approval rating is dropping. People are upset after a year and there still no substantive results toward economic problems, health care, and other issues promised in the 2008 campaigns at all levels. People are becoming upset that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are still blaming the Bush administration for this economic quagmire. It's their problem now, they own it and what they are doing and have done isn't producing results as quickly as the voting public would like. It doesn't matter that it's only been a year since the Obama administration began. For someone who has been unemployed for even six months, that seems like an eternity. Sure, expecting to return to 5% or less unemployment in a year's time is unrealistic. But that doesn't matter to people losing their home and with still no hope of finding a job.
Incumbents are losing credibility with voters and I suspect we will see a turn-over at mid-term much like there was in 1982 and 1994. President Obama still remains popular, but approval of his policies is slipping. I suspect at this point he can still be re-elected in '12, but he will have to send a more moderate message to do it. His charm and charisma as well as his oratorial skills will have worn thin by that time.
I believe his team has mistakenly believed that he was elected primarily for his approach to policy. I've held all along that he was elected for his charisma, oratoral skills, and somewhat due to his race, and a much lesser extent his liberal policies. The Obama administration needs to wake up and see this as somewhat of a referendum by voters that: Healthcare is not our #1 priority, people are starting to realize things like transparency in legislation never materialized, lobbyists and special interests still have the seats at the table that they have occupied all along, voters don't want a large invasive government, voters don't want massive deficits brought by needless spending and vote-buying, Gitmo is still no closer to being closed as promised and more troops are on their way to Afghanistan. The ridiculous way that accounting for jobs saved or created by the "stimulus" was done and has now been discarded to pretty much remove any possible way to quantify this number has severely dented his administration's credibility.
President Obama does not shoulder this burden alone. I think every single incumbent up for re-election this year is vulnerable. Don't be surprised if some more incumbents decide to "retire" rather than face a humiliating defeat. I think Specter and Reid amongst others are in deep trouble right now.
The crickets have been chirping quite loudly in this thread...... ;D
Crickets? Yes. No one is saying anything surprising. Nothing to refute.
An increasing populist is moving towards more conservative, and dare I say, libertarian views as a result of the current administration. Everyone knows it. . . yet it has been downplayed in the media and ignored by Washington.
Teabaggers are branded as a small group of radical fringe, and the 73% of the country that is not in support of the health bill is ignored as just random noise.
Someone predicted a year ago that this administration would be the best thing to happen to the Republican party since Regan. Many, myself included, abandon the party two administrations ago because Republicans began to resemble Democrats in their push to grow government.
Now we are being forced to swallow what we do not want to eat, and the backlash will be beyond anything Washington is willing to recognize.
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein
Quote from: Conan71 on January 20, 2010, 12:01:42 PM
There was a spirited debate on one member's Facebook page last night essentially denying this was any sort of referendum and that it all fell on Coakley being a terrible candidate. -
Facebook debates aren't to be taken seriously...people who post politics as their status are idiots...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 20, 2010, 02:22:21 PM
Facebook debates aren't to be taken seriously...people who post politics as their status are idiots...
Haha, then I know at least two idiots in my friends list...I had a one of them posting MA senator race updates last night in their facebook status.
He lives in Houston.
???
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 20, 2010, 02:22:21 PM
Facebook debates aren't to be taken seriously...people who post politics as their status are idiots...
(http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/pot-kettle.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 20, 2010, 02:22:21 PM
Facebook debates aren't to be taken seriously...people who post politics as their status are idiots...
Love it RM!
CoCo....a two year stint for someone more liberal than that dim Coakley, not to be confused with Copley, is not bad. Many of us progressives are thrilled to see the health care strategy forced into a new realm (whatever it takes, could be an end around based on reconciliation or a cram down with 51 Senate votes). This may be the excuse necessary for moving forward with the single payer public option. If some kind of bill can be passed now to establish as foothold, can a series of reconciliation bills then be enacted...... bills that deal with funding, such as paying for the reform by taxing the rich, or for that matter expanding Medicare to cover everyone? These are economically viable and so should qualify under reconciliation rules.
Do you think the Mass dems wanted this woman in office for several terms? Not a chance. Watch for a Kennedy insider in two years to oust this stripper man.
Guido, the Hitler boil plate youtube shenanigans are tired.....
I don't want Medicaid or Medicare and I should not be forced onto such a system simply because there are people in this country who don't have what I have in the way of health insurance. Why bust me down for something which is no fault of my own? I have no problem making sure everyone has health care available to them (as they already do, including our less than legal visitors) I fail to see what the mind-set is for there always needing to be some sort of parity which limits my choices or artificially confiscates my liberty. My current health plan serves me well and negotiates lower cost health care for me. It's hardly one of the "Cadillac" plans people are talking about but I'm happy with it and it's a nice employer-provided bennie that they should not be punished for providing.
Put out a poll which asks: "Do you support health care reform?" Naturally, you will get a resounding yes. Now faced with what the government's idea of reform is and the sleazy way it's trying to be rammed through (doing it for the sake of saying: "We passed health care reform and kept our promise"), the majority don't want it. It sucks.
The heads were talking today that the next strategy may be to break this down into multiple, smaller bills.
Congress still doesn't get it.
Sleazy?
FOTD does not recall you calling it that when it only took 51 republicans to move government as opposed to today's requirement of 60 dems.
Interesting.
Quote from: FOTD on January 20, 2010, 04:00:46 PM
Sleazy?
FOTD does not recall you calling it that when it only took 51 republicans to move government as opposed to today's requirement of 60 dems.
Interesting.
Sleazy, as in rubbing grease all over it for Madame Landrieu, and Ben Nelson and back-room sell-outs which were not near as well publicized, you know, funding bridges and new vehicles through a health care bill and making sure all the lobbyist and special interest concerns were taken care of.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 20, 2010, 03:45:27 PM
Congress still doesn't get it.
Oh. . They get it! They just refuse to admit that they get it. It's about power now and the horrible stinkin rotten albatross hanging from their necks.
If they abandon the plan they will lose all credibility, and certainly lose the house and presidency in the next election. If they find a way to facilitate the takeover of 6-10% of the economy or some portion thereof, they get the power that comes with the purse-strings. It's nearly impossible to repeal a social program once it is enacted, and that power may allow them to recover after the initial fallout and economic crash.
Either way they will lose the house. They have abandoned the economy on this issue, and people know it.
If they play "pass-the-trash", be ready for every D candidate until the end of time to use the threat that "Republicans want to take away your children's medical care." A new silver bullet in a rusting entitlement gun.
Entitlement has been the foundation of the liberal Democrat for a while now, but I'm willing to bet that we start to see a resurgence of the conservative democrat coming back to Washington, and many independants will find a home in the party. It will be the natural way for the party to survive the swing of the pendulum and should fix alot of the contrarian mentality on both sides.
Did anyone else see Tweedy vs Dean the Scream on Hardball? Two lib tools tearing each other a new one over the Mass Sen. outcome. Decision: Matthews.
Quote from: guido911 on January 20, 2010, 06:19:15 PM
Did anyone else see Tweedy vs Dean the Scream Scam on Hardball Hairball? Two lib tools tearing each other a new one over the Mass Sen. outcome. Decision: Matthews.
FIFY.
Matthews is probably still upset about getting pwn3d in the Iowa caucus after insisting Howard Dean would steal the show and finished 3rd instead.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 20, 2010, 03:45:27 PM
I don't want Medicaid or Medicare and I should not be forced onto such a system simply because there are people in this country who don't have what I have in the way of health insurance. Why bust me down for something which is no fault of my own?
What makes you think you deserve any more than anyone else? (That's a smart a** remark, not a question.) Everyone is entitled to a certain minimum level of heath care. To think that you deserve more because you have been financially fortunate is absurd. We need to destroy things like MRI machines since they are too expensive for the economically disadvantaged and soon for the government. If I can't have it, you can't have it so we'll throw the machine off the cliff. (James Bond movie reference but I can't remember the name of the code machine.) Surely you can remember "Lowest Common Denominator" from grade school math/fractions.
OK, I'm back to normal (for me) now.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 20, 2010, 08:06:03 PM
What makes you think you deserve any more than anyone else? (That's a smart a** remark, not a question.) Everyone is entitled to a certain minimum level of heath care. To think that you deserve more because you have been financially fortunate is absurd. We need to destroy things like MRI machines since they are too expensive for the economically disadvantaged and soon for the government. If I can't have it, you can't have it so we'll throw the machine off the cliff. (James Bond movie reference but I can't remember the name of the code machine.) Surely you can remember "Lowest Common Denominator" from grade school math/fractions.
OK, I'm back to normal (for me) now.
You are just a hater (channeling my inner aox/fotd)
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 20, 2010, 08:06:03 PM
What makes you think you deserve any more than anyone else? (That's a smart a** remark, not a question.) Everyone is entitled to a certain minimum level of heath care. To think that you deserve more because you have been financially fortunate is absurd. We need to destroy things like MRI machines since they are too expensive for the economically disadvantaged and soon for the government. If I can't have it, you can't have it so we'll throw the machine off the cliff. (James Bond movie reference but I can't remember the name of the code machine.) Surely you can remember "Lowest Common Denominator" from grade school math/fractions.
OK, I'm back to normal (for me) now.
I know a good facial reconstruction guy who can fix that huge bulge in your cheek from having your tongue planted so firmly in it. Only problem is he won't be taking any common denominator health plans ;)
Oh and great catch. I've earned nothing I have Through hard work or effort. I'm just financially blessed like you and that hateful Guido guy.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 20, 2010, 12:01:42 PM
Coakley was a flawed candidate, but once the implications of what this race meant to the Senate health care bill (otherwise referred to as the "pile") the tide turned seriously in Brown's favor. I notice this site is unusually quiet this morning in regards to the liberals who usually lurk and post here. There was a spirited debate on one member's Facebook page last night essentially denying this was any sort of referendum and that it all fell on Coakley being a terrible candidate. This is what liberal and conservative pundits (I've watched most of the election coverage on MSNBC, approximately 90% of it if I had to guess, including watching Scarborough this morning) are referring to as a "circular firing squad" regarding liberal Dims not taking seriously the underlying reasons for Brown surging late in the race.
I seriously hope that most liberals are too arrogant to understand this went much deeper than Coakley being a poor choice to replace Senator Kennedy (she was a poor choice, don't get me wrong). The electorate will show them the door in November if they are unwilling to take a more moderate approach to healthcare and get more concerned about more pressing issues like unemployment, soaring deficits, wasteful spending, and bilking the American voter and taxpayer much quicker than a Bernie Madoff wet dream.
Some telling stats were passed around post election. President Obama's approval rating is dropping. People are upset after a year and there still no substantive results toward economic problems, health care, and other issues promised in the 2008 campaigns at all levels. People are becoming upset that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are still blaming the Bush administration for this economic quagmire. It's their problem now, they own it and what they are doing and have done isn't producing results as quickly as the voting public would like. It doesn't matter that it's only been a year since the Obama administration began. For someone who has been unemployed for even six months, that seems like an eternity. Sure, expecting to return to 5% or less unemployment in a year's time is unrealistic. But that doesn't matter to people losing their home and with still no hope of finding a job.
Incumbents are losing credibility with voters and I suspect we will see a turn-over at mid-term much like there was in 1982 and 1994. President Obama still remains popular, but approval of his policies is slipping. I suspect at this point he can still be re-elected in '12, but he will have to send a more moderate message to do it. His charm and charisma as well as his oratorial skills will have worn thin by that time.
I believe his team has mistakenly believed that he was elected primarily for his approach to policy. I've held all along that he was elected for his charisma, oratoral skills, and somewhat due to his race, and a much lesser extent his liberal policies. The Obama administration needs to wake up and see this as somewhat of a referendum by voters that: Healthcare is not our #1 priority, people are starting to realize things like transparency in legislation never materialized, lobbyists and special interests still have the seats at the table that they have occupied all along, voters don't want a large invasive government, voters don't want massive deficits brought by needless spending and vote-buying, Gitmo is still no closer to being closed as promised and more troops are on their way to Afghanistan. The ridiculous way that accounting for jobs saved or created by the "stimulus" was done and has now been discarded to pretty much remove any possible way to quantify this number has severely dented his administration's credibility.
President Obama does not shoulder this burden alone. I think every single incumbent up for re-election this year is vulnerable. Don't be surprised if some more incumbents decide to "retire" rather than face a humiliating defeat. I think Specter and Reid amongst others are in deep trouble right now.
The reason for the lack of response is many people believe posting differing views from those select few who seem to dominate the political boards is a waste of time, with the inevitable outcome of useless back and forths and name-callings.
But I'm a glutton for punishment, so I'll bite.
I have very mixed feelings on this outcome. It is obvious that Coakley ran a terrible campaign, and didn't even bother showing up until it was too late. She is the definition of smug. However, I believe she was still the better choice based on her stance on the overall issues, not just one.
Brown ran under the guise of being an 'independent' of which he clearly is not. His voting record speaks for itself. He is very conservative, has voted with the Mass Republicans over 90% of the time, and stands for ideals and values that seem contrary to the majority of the constituents in his home state.
This then begs to ask the question: Why did he win? The reason, in my opinion, is an incredibly simple, yet selfish one. The Massachusetts people already have a public health care system. Brown ran on the fear and intimidation platform regarding the national healthcare reform, citing it would disrupt their state system and cost more than what they already have. So those people came out and voted to protect their public healthcare, not caring at all what might happen to the rest of us.
Thousands of people voting on a single issue, and ignoring the fact that Brown is a homophobic, misogynistic, torture supporting, anti abortion, teabagger. (You can argue this all you want- Brown's past history and voting record speaks for itself).
Hmmmm.....seems very in keeping with what one would expect in Massachusetts. Not.
But the biggest blame for this debacle should be placed not on the Mass voters but on the national and state Democratic parties for their failure to organize, failure to effectively educate all of us on their healthcare plan, and above all, failure to fight back. All the democrats seem to do is to retreat and defend. Pathetic.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on January 21, 2010, 09:41:11 AM
The reason for the lack of response is many people believe posting differing views from those select few who seem to dominate the political boards is a waste of time, with the inevitable outcome of useless back and forths and name-callings.
But I'm a glutton for punishment, so I'll bite.
I have very mixed feelings on this outcome. It is obvious that Coakley ran a terrible campaign, and didn't even bother showing up until it was too late. She is the definition of smug. However, I believe she was still the better choice based on her stance on the overall issues, not just one.
Brown ran under the guise of being an 'independent' of which he clearly is not. His voting record speaks for itself. He is very conservative, has voted with the Mass Republicans over 90% of the time, and stands for ideals and values that seem contrary to the majority of the constituents in his home state.
This then begs to ask the question: Why did he win? The reason, in my opinion, is an incredibly simple, yet selfish one. The Massachusetts people already have a public health care system. Brown ran on the fear and intimidation platform regarding the national healthcare reform, citing it would disrupt their state system and cost more than what they already have. So those people came out and voted to protect their public healthcare, not caring at all what might happen to the rest of us.
Thousands of people voting on a single issue, and ignoring the fact that Brown is a homophobic, misogynistic, torture supporting, anti abortion, teabagger. (You can argue this all you want- Brown's past history and voting record speaks for itself).
Hmmmm.....seems very in keeping with what one would expect in Massachusetts. Not.
But the biggest blame for this debacle should be placed not on the Mass voters but on the national and state Democratic parties for their failure to organize, failure to effectively educate all of us on their healthcare plan, and above all, failure to fight back. All the democrats seem to do is to retreat and defend. Pathetic.
When the most liberal of you libs learn to quit using the disgusting term "teabagger" I will start to take your comments more serious than a speck of lint.
Quote from: we vs us on January 13, 2010, 12:55:30 PM
Is Coakley the new Palin?
Latest forecasted trends for this fall: Brown is the new Palin.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 09:49:09 AM
When the most liberal of you libs learn to quit using the disgusting term "teabagger" I will start to take your comments more serious than a speck of lint.
Wow that's all you got? I agree it's disgusting, but most likely not in they way you assume.
Brown is a homophobe and a teabagger? Huh? Someone has been channeling her inner Olberdouche.
And how exactly is Brown a misogynist? Because last I heard Brown never left a woman to drown to save his fat political @ss like his predecessor Ted Kennedy did. Another in a long line of FAIL puppy.
I just heard Nancy Pelosi announce that she does not have the votes to pass the Senate version of health care reform. Now what do we do?
Quote from: guido911 on January 21, 2010, 10:10:16 AM
Brown is a homophobe and a teabagger? Huh? Someone has been channeling her inner Olberdouche.
And how exactly is Brown a misogynist? Because last I heard Brown never left a woman to drown to save his fat political @ss like his predecessor Ted Kennedy did. Another in a long line of FAIL puppy.
Or that nice young man from North Carolina who was knocking boots (apparently without a Jimmy hat) with a campaign aide during the '08 POTUS campaign while his wife was suffering from breast cancer.
Quote from: guido911 on January 21, 2010, 10:10:16 AM
Brown is a homophobe and a teabagger? Huh? Someone has been channeling her inner Olberdouche.
And how exactly is Brown a misogynist? Because last I heard Brown never left a woman to drown to save his fat political @ss like his predecessor Ted Kennedy did. Another in a long line of FAIL puppy.
Like I said, his past history and voting record speaks for itself. If you don't agree, prove it wrong.
The latest, and certainly not the only, misogynist acts by Brown and supporters:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/coakley-curling-iron-rape-comment-video-scott-brown-rally-2558869.html
And...there's plenty of video on the internet capturing Brown 'pimping' out his daughters on national TV, however I chose a messenger you could undoubtedly relate to and appreciate:
http://animalnewyork.com/2010/01/even-glenn-beck-is-totally-creeped-out-by-scott-browns-daughter-pimping/
Kennedy left Mary Jo to drown? Were you there? Sounds like YOU are channeling every right wing blow-hard who has hated Kennedy from day one. Let the Kennedy thing go. I know its hard, but you can do it. Really.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on January 21, 2010, 09:54:12 AM
Wow that's all you got? I agree it's disgusting, but most likely not in they way you assume.
Teabagger? Mysoginist? That's not resorting to name calling rather than making an actual point?
I know exactly why it's disgusting and I'm amazed that a homosexual isn't appaled by it. This would be entirely unacceptible in the common (common= vulgar) vernacular if it had been a Republican who had coined it. Prior to liberals jumping all over the term, it was a derogatory term used by homophobes to describe gay men.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on January 21, 2010, 11:02:36 AM
Like I said, his past history and voting record speaks for itself. If you don't agree, prove it wrong.
The latest, and certainly not the only, misogynist acts by Brown and supporters:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/coakley-curling-iron-rape-comment-video-scott-brown-rally-2558869.html
And...there's plenty of video on the internet capturing Brown 'pimping' out his daughters on national TV, however I chose a messenger you could undoubtedly relate to and appreciate:
http://animalnewyork.com/2010/01/even-glenn-beck-is-totally-creeped-out-by-scott-browns-daughter-pimping/
Kennedy left Mary Jo to drown? Were you there? Sounds like YOU are channeling every right wing blow-hard who has hated Kennedy from day one. Let the Kennedy thing go. I know its hard, but you can do it. Really.
What is the relevance of some weirdo shouting out in the crowd at a campaign rally and some blogger claiming that the candidate's head nod was a result of the comment? That takes a huge, huge stretch to turn that into "Brown is a misogynist". Along the lines of how you white-wash the Kopechne incident, you weren't there, how do you know what the head nod was all about?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 10:59:29 AM
Or that nice young man from North Carolina who was knocking boots (apparently without a Jimmy hat) with a campaign aide during the '08 POTUS campaign while his wife was suffering from breast cancer.
Were we talking about Edwards? Hmm.....must have missed something in here. You guys LOOOVE to deflect. I expect it's because you have nothing substantial.
Oh, I get it now. You were assuming I am an Edwards supporter? Nope. Wrong. Try again.
And you are obviously confusing the terms Misogyny and Misogamy.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 11:13:36 AM
What is the relevance of some weirdo shouting out in the crowd at a campaign rally and some blogger claiming that the candidate's head nod was a result of the comment? That takes a huge, huge stretch to turn that into "Brown is a misogynist". Along the lines of how you white-wash the Kopechne incident, you weren't there, how do you know what the head nod was all about?
Well, seeing as the Kennedy incident was 41 years ago, with no eyewitnesses, it would be impossible to condemn Kennedy for something as heinous as to deliberately let someone drown. The fact is nobody knows, it was a terrible tragedy, and the only two persons involved are now both dead. Its humorous that you think a rational argument is 'whitewashing'. Whatever.
The Brown incident had dozens of eyewitnesses, many of whom have come forward and stated they saw Brown nod and acknowledge the statements, laugh, and shrug it off. It will certainly be debated, but it's actually a huge huge stretch to compare Kennedy to Brown, so there you have it.
The daughter pimping is pretty good though, don't you think?
It's hilarious....
So is that idiot a$$hole Edwards....
It's time to move on. The Twit vs. Sh!t race is over!
Check this out: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/19/827241/-MA-Sen:-Map-of-Special-Election-Results-by-Town
Oh, he's not that big.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on January 21, 2010, 11:22:45 AM
Well, seeing as the Kennedy incident was 41 years ago, with no eyewitnesses, it would be impossible to condemn Kennedy for something as heinous as to deliberately let someone drown. The fact is nobody knows, it was a terrible tragedy, and the only two persons involved are now both dead. Its humorous that you think a rational argument is 'whitewashing'. Whatever.
No "eyewitnesses"? Are you crazy, what about Teddy? As for being deliberate, do you recall how long after the accident Teddy notified the authorities? How about after the car was discovered and numerous hours after the accident. You can spin away, but I believe it is possible to condemn him.
Still scratching my head over that homophobe/teabag contradiction. As for pimping his daughters, I agree that was a terrible joke. But if that constitutes misogyny, then I think this conversation is over.
Quote from: guido911 on January 21, 2010, 11:37:55 AM
No "eyewitnesses"? Are you crazy, what about Teddy? As for being deliberate, do you recall how long after the accident Teddy notified the authorities? How about after the car was discovered and numerous hours after the accident. You can spin away, but I believe it is possible to condemn him.
Still scratching my head over that homophobe/teabag contradiction. As for pimping his daughters, I agree that was a terrible joke. But if that constitutes misogyny, then I think this conversation is over.
It is possible to condemn him for certain crimes, of which he was indeed found guilty of. Waiting 9 hours to notify the authorities is not acceptable.
It is not possible, however, to condemn the man for deliberately letting someone drown. That could be considered manslaughter and there simply wasn't then, as now, enough proof to condemn the man for something so heinous, as you were trying to do in your earlier post. Please fill me in on what I'm 'spinning' here.
As far as Brown's views on homosexuality, marriage rights, etc., look it up.
As far as Brown's involvement in the 'Teabaggers' movement, look it up.
And yes, Brown pimping out his young daughters is a misogynist act.
You don't have to agree or disagree with it, but it is what it is.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on January 21, 2010, 11:56:13 AM
It is possible to condemn him for certain crimes, of which he was indeed found guilty of. Waiting 9 hours to notify the authorities is not acceptable.
It is not possible, however, to condemn the man for deliberately letting someone drown. That could be considered manslaughter and there simply wasn't then, as now, enough proof to condemn the man for something so heinous, as you were trying to do in your earlier post. Please fill me in on what I'm 'spinning' here.
Substitute the word "convict" for "condemn" and you will probably get a few more to agree with you.
Lets not get down on Teddy here.
I am proud of him.
In four days he will celebrate 6 months of sobriety.
Congrats Teddy!
Quote from: Gaspar on January 21, 2010, 01:05:38 PM
Lets not get down on Teddy here.
I am proud of him.
In four days he will celebrate 6 months of sobriety.
Congrats Teddy!
"Post of the day" award winner (imho)
Quote from: Gaspar on January 21, 2010, 01:05:38 PM
Lets not get down on Teddy here.
I am proud of him.
In four days he will celebrate 6 months of sobriety.
Congrats Teddy!
Post of the month is more like it!
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 09:49:09 AM
When the most liberal of you libs learn to quit using the disgusting term "teabagger" I will start to take your comments more serious than a speck of lint.
But let's remember coco, it was the 'Teapartiers' themselves that coined the phrase. Whether it was by mistake or not, it's not the left's fault. It is probably the left's fault for continuing it on, but you gotta admit, it makes you chuckle.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 01:13:33 PM
Post of the month is more like it!
agreed.
Okay, I am watching the news and the coverage of Scott Brown visiting DC is way over the top.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 21, 2010, 01:05:38 PM
Lets not get down on Teddy here.
I am proud of him.
In four days he will celebrate 6 months of sobriety.
Congrats Teddy!
Wow. Classy. Your mother must be very proud of you.
The Last of The Kennedy Dynasty
As soon as his cancer was detected, I noticed the immediate
attempt at the "canonization" of old Teddy Kennedy by the
mainstream media. They are saying what a "great American"
he is. I say, let's get a couple things clear & not twist
the facts to change the real history.
1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it. He
was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once
for paying a classmate to cheat for him.
2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but
mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops!
The man can't count to four! His father, Joseph P. Kennedy,
former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from
bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during
prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his
enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he
served in Europe, not Korea , where a war was raging. No
preferential treatment for him! (like he charged that
President Bush received).
3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris , never advanced beyond the
rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being
discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" NEVER
advancing past the rank of Private!
4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia
, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including
once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a
residential neighborhood with his headlights off after
dark.. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked.
Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing!
5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash and
hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the
hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was
legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a
"state secret" until in the 1980's when the report was
unsealed. Didn't hear about that from the unbiased media,
did we?
6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on
Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts . At about 11:00 PM,
he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile
limousine and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo
Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an
unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car
off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond.
7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party passing
several houses and a fire station. Two friends then
returned with him to the scene of the accident. According
to their later testimony, they told him what he already
knew - that he was required by law to immediately report the
accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way
to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep.
Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the
wreck had already been discovered. Before dying Kopechne
had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in
the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began "calling in
favors", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her
corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family before an
autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain,
but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove
under the water trying to rescue Kopechne and he didn't call
police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely
assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police
in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight.
Since the accident Kennedy's "political enemies" have
referred to him as the distinguished Senator from
Chappaquiddick. He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of
an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO
MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the
Kennedy's insurance policy and never sued. There was later
an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her
family successfully fought against this in court, and
Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.... a "token of
friendship"?
8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty
years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments
seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that
ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum
wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the
indigent, funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors,
and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism".
In his very first Senate roll he was the floor manager for
the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and
opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world
countries..
9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and
author of every expansion of an increase in immigration up
to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to
illegal aliens. Not to mention the pious grilling he gave
the last two Supreme Court nominees, as if he was the
standard bearer for the nation in matters of "what is right"
What a pompous @#$%&!!
10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud,
boisterous, and very disrespectful to ladies. JERK is a
better description than "great American". "A blonde in
every pond" is his motto.
Let's not allow the spin doctors to make this jerk a hero --
how quickly the American public forgets what his real
legacy is - a piece of -----!
heh!
Quote from: Gaspar on January 21, 2010, 01:05:38 PM
Lets not get down on Teddy here.
I am proud of him.
In four days he will celebrate 6 months of sobriety.
Congrats Teddy!
Point of order here, only five months so far...
Quote from: Conan71 on January 21, 2010, 11:07:32 AM
Teabagger? Mysoginist? That's not resorting to name calling rather than making an actual point?
I know exactly why it's disgusting and I'm amazed that a homosexual isn't appaled by it. This would be entirely unacceptible in the common (common= vulgar) vernacular if it had been a Republican who had coined it. Prior to liberals jumping all over the term, it was a derogatory term used by homophobes to describe gay men.
LOL- Actually this should be post of the day.
Not sure where you have been living, but the so called 'vulgar' term
teabagger has nothing to do with describing gay men, or homophobes. I guess you never watched Sex and the city?
And it was the 'teabaggers' (political group) themselves who first came up with this nickname, hence the irony and humor. You can hardly blame the liberals for jumping all over that one.
But not to worry, the political term, 'teabagger' is now legit since it achieved finalist status by the New Oxford American Dictionary for word of the year in 2009.
Love this new ad:
(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/AFF_Trashed_ad.gif)
...just wanted to be a part of what is undoubtedly the very best thread on the internet. Bravi.