By virtue of the fact that State Sen. and military JAG Scott Brown had Attorney General Martha Coakley on defense all night, on Obama's core issues, Republicans have already won the debate in Massachusetts and are poised to stay up late when the votes are counted Jan. 19th, when voters cast ballots in the special election to fill the late Senator Ted Kennedy's seat.
Mind you, this race is not about Ted Kennedy, and there is no way he is resting in peace.
This is about how in one year, the day before Obama's first inaugural anniversary, Democrats have gone from Superpower status to beating back anything moderate or Republican in philosophy.
Even when Coakley had a chance to talk about the case to pull troops out of the Middle East, a position she goes abruptly against the President on, she bungled it.
No more troops to Afghanistan is a popular idea in Massachusetts. So how did she fail to deliver that message?
Coakley spent more time commending her opponent's military and judicial experience than explaining what an exit strategy would look like.
Make no mistake about it, this Special Election is about, as Scott Brown put it, whether voters want to give Democrat Martha Coakley the 60th vote in the Senate. He wants to be the 41st vote for "the people. For you."
At a time when jobs are scarce, terror is back at orange, and heating oil is expensive, not to mention the rent, guess what: after one year, Coakley and the Democrats can give up talking about Bush-Cheney-McCain. They need to develop and focus on a clear consistent message that comes from the leadership and transparency voters mandated a year ago. Change can mean anything. But voters did not mean more of the same.
It happens to be a lousy week for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to be under attack for word choices and imperfect vote counting. It could just lead to a filibuster hungry GOP. And not because they picked up a message. Just because they stepped back to watch Democrats try to find their way in a time that is perhaps the most challenging to govern in eighty years.
Let the economy recover by getting government out of the way, stabilize the financial system by getting bad loans away from banks in a special company, to be worked out with the FDIC and borrowers, so banks can get back to lending, pull back micro-regulations; encourage domestic energy development of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power; hold off sweeping bills like health care, cap-and-tax energy, etc. until the economy recovers; and do what the field forces ask in Afghanistan and Iraq.
IE, do the opposite of Obama and the Democrat super-majority, and approval ratings will go over 60%.
Let the economy recover by getting government out of the way"
Wasn't government effectively "out of the way" when the chain reaction banking/financial crisis happened? I don't think you can blame that one on government intervention.
"stabilize the financial system by getting bad loans away from banks in a special company"
How do you know if a loan is bad or not? What defines it? Being paid on is what defines it. Loans that were good two months ago are going bad. Banks have been writing off loans left and right.
"encourage domestic energy development of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power"
Domestic energy? Your are talking about squeezing oil out of rocks! The easy stuff is gone! You going to run your car on coal? You want the nuclear waste in your backyard?
If you think common sense means simple answers, think again. There are no easy answers any more. If there were, we would be using them.
FNMA & FHLMC are both government chartered agencies, unlike private banks and securities companies available to ask Treasury for funds and are not under the scrutiny of the SEC or private rating agencies, controlled over 1/3 of all residential mortgages and were the foundation for the subprime mess, private securities companies jumped on the bandwagon around 2006 only after FNMA & FHLMC solidly established the market.
The FED is technically not government agency; however, chairman is appointed by the President, and FED has monopoly power over interest rates, held them artificially below market for over a decade, encouraging massive debt run-up.
A bad loan is one that is delinquent in payments. Banks should be able to put all bad loans in a separate corporation for working out, clean up their balance sheets so they can resume lending again and be in compliance with the new federal regulators.
We have enough oil, gas and coal reserves which if developed, would allow us to be virtually independent of foreign sources over a decade or so; and that's not including nuclear power plants, which the Democrats have fought off for a generation and the politically motivated EPA is poised to cripple.
The simple answer is full-bore development of our natural resources for energy, using profits and government tax policy to encourage parallel development of "green" energy that, over the course of the next generation, may become slowly over time a cost-effective replacement for current sources.
It is ridiculous that, even before the bills are actually voted on, rounding-up 60-Democrats, the # needed to overcome the Republicans' filibuster, -- to vote, with their Party, on allowing a floor-debate to commence and to vote, with their Party, on allowing an up-or-down vote to take place -- is so difficult. But .... the Dems won't even get that far if Brown (god forbid) wins ... giving the Republicans the 41 votes needed to filibuster. And there's not a d.a.m.n. thing the Democrats can do to stop it.
Meaning every single piece of legislation will be filibustered. Absolutely no_thing will get done: No climate change, no healthcare reform, no banking regulations, no improved education, etc. etc. etc.
Furthermore Brown is a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. His claim of being a moderate is just as much a myth as the Democratic Party 60-seat majority is filibuster-proof. The GOP relishes the thought of getting back in power. For them, a 60-seat majority would be a dream-come-true, but a living-nightmare for the majority of Americans.
The Democrats have some very important legislation on the table, however, if voters in Massachusetts (heaven forbid) elect Brown all of that will surely get scrapped. Unfortunately the American people will suffer as a result thereof.
just think what the world would be like if Republicans (McCain/Palin) had won.
I suspect the wealthy in Mass. are not thinking about the interest of the country ... they are thinking about their own pockets. The Rethuglicans will protect their selfish interests.
What an insult to the memory of Ted Kennedy! The Lion must be angry! This seat should be easy pickings for Dems.
Alas, this represents a fight between the entitled and the disenfranchised.
Corporate Democrats serve their donors, so we end up with mandates to purchase insurance from politically connected monopolies that will only be regulated by weak state insurance boards that don't enforce the regulations we have now.
Forcing people to buy from monopolies who's only responsibility is to raise prices as high as they can and to pay out as little as they can to maximize shareholder profits is bad. When those monopolies are allowed to engage in price-fixing because of an anti-trust exemption, it's worse. When those monopolies will only be regulated by the same toothless state boards that don't enforce the regulations we have now, it's downright immoral.
This isn't a fight between the entitled and the disenfranchised. The entitled and the insurers and pharma all win on this bill. This bill pits the middle class against the poor and neither of them win. It pits the unions against non-union members of the working class and neither wins. It's a corporate sellout. It's class warfare from the top down.
They suggest the lesser of two evils approach, "We're not Bush," or "Where else are you gonna go?"
The last resort is to insult voters in hopes of getting them to the polls. They couldn't possibly acknowledge that they've gone off course and need to live up to their 2008 promises.
When pharma doesn't get what they want from Democrats, they cut of donations and put out attack ads.
When voters don't get what they were promised, they work harder, phone bank, donate more, and drag friends to the polls.
We can see which approach politicians respect when we look at the Drug Reimportation Amendment. Pharma got what they wanted. Taxpayers and patients lost.
Let's hope Democrats learn from this election, whether it's a close call or a loss, and govern in 2010 the way they promised in 2008. Otherwise they're in trouble in November.
And Republicans are doing their best to muddy the waters and obstruct.
And a substantial portion of the electorate are doing their best to get it all wrong.
So, faced with the greatest financial crisis that has faced our nation since the Great Depression, everyone seems to be doing their best.
Why to republicans hate America and Americans?
The party of NO will make sure nothing passes and then ask the American people to vote the do nothing congress out and the low information voters will do just that. Then we get back cons like Bush and friends to cut taxes for their rich friends and sending jobs overseas and deny equal rights to all Americans.
Yes that would teach them.
I swear, for Democrats, it's like that moment in THE NAKED GUN, the first Police Squad movie with Leslie Neilsen, where a missile hits a fireworks factory and blows up the building and there is a fire and explosions going off -- and meanwhile Leslie Neilsen laughably stands in front of a group of people that are gathering and looking on "Move along! Nothing to see here! There's NOTHING happening here, folks..."
... the Obama "Democrats" are INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Bush-Cheney Republicans.
#1. INCREASING WARS in Afghanistan (AND Iraq, see expanding US embassy there) - Check
#2. Tax-cuts for rich, er, "NO OVERSIGHT BAILOUTS" - check
#3. unlimited government surveillance powers in the "war on terra" - check
#4. DEREGULATE US financial markets - YEP, Rahm Emanuel recently DEREGULATED _ANOTHER_ portion of the the (Glass Steagall Act?)
#5. NOTHING real done for the FORECLOSURE & EVICTION crisis - check
#6. A "health care" "reform" plan that is an INSURANCE INDUSTRY WISH LIST - check
#7. an overburdened social safety net - check
#8. BILLIONS for bankers - PINK SLIPS for American workers, check.
#9. Mr. Obama PERSONALLY RENOMINATING Ben Bernanke for another term as Fed Reserve Chairman -
"HECK 'uva JOB, Obama-Bushie"!
#10. Bernake, making noises to PLEASE __DEMOCRATIC__ senators in his Fed. confirmation hearings -
talks about "PRIVATIZING Social Security" -
.... besides (in addition to) UNLIMITED, expanding wars & war-president powers, the above - President Obama's so-called "Democratic" agenda - ARE the Alpha & Omega of REPUBLICAN party ideology!
Not much for ANY Democrat candidate to brag on there...... 2010 is going to be a brutal year.
Congressional Quarterly Study Finds Obama with Highest Legislative Success Rate in History of U.S.
Part One of a NPR story talks about the study done by the Congressional Quarterly finding Obama with a 96.7% legislative success rate since taking office - absolutely unprecedented in the history of the United States.
Click here if link above not working: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116
Part Two of the report talks about how much partisan politics played into Obama's first year. Every Year, Congressional Quarterly measures the percentage of partisan votes taken in the House and Senate. Despite the fact that Obama won in a landslide, demonstrating the people's desire for "change", the Republicans have chosen to vote political objectives rather than policy objective - "because they believe that if we fail, they will succeed," said House Majority Leader Steny Hower (D-MD).
If they succeed, what do they win?
And doesn't this make the first part of the study even that much more impressive?
Click here if link above not working: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095&ps=rs
Forcing people to buy from monopolies who's only responsibility is to raise prices as high as they can and to pay out as little as they can to maximize shareholder profits is bad. When those monopolies are allowed to engage in price-fixing because of an anti-trust exemption, it's worse. When those monopolies will only be regulated by the same toothless state boards that don't enforce the regulations we have now, it's downright immoral. And there's more:
* Large age ratios force older consumers to pay substantially more for their premiums
* Insurers are given wide latitude in design policies and allows for the sale of very low 60% actuarial junk insurance and “catastrophic plans”
* People will be force to pay 9.8% of their income for a low value insurance plan
* The weak risk adjuster that would not stop insurers from trying to game the system and cherry pick customers
This bill benefits insurers and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of consumers and patients. It is a failure that makes year 1 of Obama's term a failure as well.
For the sake of November elections, I hope they take Coakley as a wakeup call and focus on the promises made in
Some of us probably had to drop or reduce our healthcare coverage as a result.
Now , under the terms of the plan we favor, those of us who can still afford a plan just like the one we are subsidizing for the union guy, will now have to pay an extra 40% for our plan while we subsidize his at cost.
Tell me again why we are for this?
Two people with identical "Cadillac" plans develop some form of condition generally viewed as terminal
A promising experimental treatment is covered by the Cadillac plan (that is why its called a "Cadillac" plan) and the union guy takes advantage of it and is cured.
The other lady had to drop her "Cadillac" plan for her family because she couldn't afford the 40% tax and as a result, the treatment was not available for her child.
Next time, do what you said you would and listen to the voters who gave you the mandate you said you wanted for change.
When one looks at issues such as Afghanistan, the bank bailouts with CEOs getting enormous bonuses, and health care reform which isn't, the only logical conclusion for voters is if a politician acts like a Republican, then why shouldn't they just vote for one.
If the Dems had shown by their ACTIONS that they had something different and better to offer Main St. America, then they wouldn't be in the precarious position they are in now.
Scott Brown is the one claiming that this isn't about the Kennedy legacy, even though he's the one running ads that fade from JFK's image into his own.
Scott Brown is the one claiming that he doesn't know about the "tea party movement", even though he's appeared at multiple tea party rallies.
His desperation is inexcusable. These are serious times, and they require leadership that reflect that. Scott Brown isn't even close to being a serious candidate.
Everybody and its mother have beat up on Obama/the democrats since 01-21-2009 thru air waves and print. When Obama tried to addressed things he campaigned on, got criticized for doing too much. When he went overseas several times, he was criticized, nevermind that the american president is the leader of the free world. Where was the voice of the liberals/progressives - running scare of the republicans, afraid to take a stand on tv, radio or in print for what the president was/is trying to do.
Take health care, I viewed c-span washjournal everyday in 2009. 65% of their guests were conservative talking heads bashing HCR, from 'death panels' to 'higher taxes' becoming an extension of Fox News. Corporate MSM drive the discussions on every issue clearly touting the conservative talking points for 24/7 - what's people to do, they believe the lies, half-truths they hear, it's repeated often enough.
The HCR became unpopular because there is no 'single payer', no 'public option', no 'buy in to medicare'. The polls fell as a direct proportion to the elimination of the items dems wanted. It's time for progressives/liberals/democrats to support the congressional dems and the Obama Admin. Get the truth out there - where's the ink and air time on 2001 - 2008, the decade of deception brought on by the republican party. No, it's to easier to blame a democratic president for having the audacity to try and get us out of this mess.
There's only one problem: A majority of Americans are rejecting his agenda. You blame Republicans but dozens of HOUSE DEMOCRATS are voting against him as well.
Please explain to me again, exactly what is the republican philosophy nowadays? Outside of opposing anything and everything obama supports of course... Is it to break the record for most fillibusters (or threats to fillibuster) in a four year term? They are certainly on pace to achieve that one!
And what is all the talk of a super-majority? Can republicans continue to pretend that the democrats are some unified force that has overtaken the country while a debate rages for over a year on a reform bill? Some unified force. And a super-majority? Really? When was the last time leiberman even pretended he had any interest in the democrat's agenda? Is landreiu not more republican than at least five actual republicans in the senate? Her profile according to her voting record says she is more conservative in voting than at least a quarter of the house republicans.
They suggest the lesser of two evils approach, "We're not Bush," or "Where else are you gonna go?"
The last resort is to insult voters in hopes of getting them to the polls. They couldn't possibly acknowledge that they've gone off course and need to live up to their 2008 promises.
When pharma doesn't get what they want from Democrats, they cut of donations and put out attack ads.
When voters don't get what they were promised, they work harder, phone bank, donate more, and drag friends to the polls.
We can see which approach politicians respect when we look at the Drug Reimportation Amendment. Pharma got what they wanted. Taxpayers and patients lost.
Let's hope Democrats learn from this election, whether it's a close call or a loss, and govern in 2010 the way they promised in 2008. Otherwise they're in trouble in November.