Scott Brown Wins! Coakley concedes! Dem's lose 60 vote majority!
- Thread starter dabamus
- Start date
They've still got 59 Senators, a strong House majority, and the White House, right?
I'm not going to try to spin it, as a Democrat it's extremely disheartening. As a lifelong Democrat from Massachusetts, it's heartbreaking. My one hope is that this will be a wake up call to my party that they can't just play defense anymore and need to be more pro-active in pursuing their agenda.
I'm not going to try to spin it, as a Democrat it's extremely disheartening. As a lifelong Democrat from Massachusetts, it's heartbreaking. My one hope is that this will be a wake up call to my party that they can't just play defense anymore and need to be more pro-active in pursuing their agenda.
[quote name='bvharris']They've still got 59 Senators, a strong House majority, and the White House, right?
I'm not going to try to spin it, as a Democrat it's extremely disheartening. As a lifelong Democrat from Massachusetts, it's heartbreaking. My one hope is that this will be a wake up call to my party that they can't just play defense anymore and need to be more pro-active in pursuing their agenda.[/QUOTE]
Being pro-active in pursuing their agenda is what led to this loss. What needs to change is who decides what their agenda is. Pelosi et al. needs the boot.
I'm not going to try to spin it, as a Democrat it's extremely disheartening. As a lifelong Democrat from Massachusetts, it's heartbreaking. My one hope is that this will be a wake up call to my party that they can't just play defense anymore and need to be more pro-active in pursuing their agenda.[/QUOTE]
Being pro-active in pursuing their agenda is what led to this loss. What needs to change is who decides what their agenda is. Pelosi et al. needs the boot.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='dabamus']I love it. The dems are going to finally see that the public is fed up with their policies and actions.[/QUOTE]
This means the Republicans are going to actually come up with a plan and try to come to a consensus with the majority party to govern this country, right?
Right?
[quote name='Ruined']Being pro-active in pursuing their agenda is what led to this loss. What needs to change is who decides what their agenda is. Pelosi et al. needs the boot.[/QUOTE]
Don't kid yourself with the partisan horse shit. The unemployment rate is what's doing this. If it's at 7.5%, it's a laugher.
This means the Republicans are going to actually come up with a plan and try to come to a consensus with the majority party to govern this country, right?
Right?
[quote name='Ruined']Being pro-active in pursuing their agenda is what led to this loss. What needs to change is who decides what their agenda is. Pelosi et al. needs the boot.[/QUOTE]
Don't kid yourself with the partisan horse shit. The unemployment rate is what's doing this. If it's at 7.5%, it's a laugher.
[quote name='bvharris']They've still got 59 Senators, a strong House majority, and the White House, right?
I'm not going to try to spin it, as a Democrat it's extremely disheartening. As a lifelong Democrat from Massachusetts, it's heartbreaking. My one hope is that this will be a wake up call to my party that they can't just play defense anymore and need to be more pro-active in pursuing their agenda.[/QUOTE]
defense? I thought the Dems have been pretty active at pursuing their agenda. While I don't agree with most of it, I'd have to say Obama has done a great job at going after what he wants. He didn't waste time, he made good use of his first year.
I'm not going to try to spin it, as a Democrat it's extremely disheartening. As a lifelong Democrat from Massachusetts, it's heartbreaking. My one hope is that this will be a wake up call to my party that they can't just play defense anymore and need to be more pro-active in pursuing their agenda.[/QUOTE]
defense? I thought the Dems have been pretty active at pursuing their agenda. While I don't agree with most of it, I'd have to say Obama has done a great job at going after what he wants. He didn't waste time, he made good use of his first year.
It's a wake-up call, that's for sure, and really shows how far Obama's influence has eroded.
I'd like to think the Democrats will realize that this was a proxy referendum on the health care bill and come to the conclusion that it needs to be massively retooled. But that is only wishful thinking. I'd also like to think that the Republicans will learn from this that a return to true fiscal conservative policy is actually what the people want and take advantage. However, that's a pipe dream too.
I'd like to think the Democrats will realize that this was a proxy referendum on the health care bill and come to the conclusion that it needs to be massively retooled. But that is only wishful thinking. I'd also like to think that the Republicans will learn from this that a return to true fiscal conservative policy is actually what the people want and take advantage. However, that's a pipe dream too.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='myl0r']defense? I thought the Dems have been pretty active at pursuing their agenda. While I don't agree with most of it, I'd have to say Obama has done a great job at going after what he wants. He didn't waste time, he made good use of his first year.[/QUOTE]
It's not Obama's fault, I'll agree with that. But the Republicans aren't really bringing an agenda of their own to the table other than "let's not do what Obama wants". Which, as it turns out, is a fantastic strategy, but certainly not anything approaching governance.
If Democrats are strong in their conviction that their policies will put this country on the right track (a belief I happen to share) than they should be fighting to enact those policies, 60 seats or not. It just feels to me like they're running scared at times. If Republicans are going to take control of the country back, I'd prefer Dems go down fighting for what they believe in. And if they can't fix it, then maybe they don't deserve to be running things, but for now I still think its a more palatable alternative than the party of "make Obama fail".
It's not Obama's fault, I'll agree with that. But the Republicans aren't really bringing an agenda of their own to the table other than "let's not do what Obama wants". Which, as it turns out, is a fantastic strategy, but certainly not anything approaching governance.
If Democrats are strong in their conviction that their policies will put this country on the right track (a belief I happen to share) than they should be fighting to enact those policies, 60 seats or not. It just feels to me like they're running scared at times. If Republicans are going to take control of the country back, I'd prefer Dems go down fighting for what they believe in. And if they can't fix it, then maybe they don't deserve to be running things, but for now I still think its a more palatable alternative than the party of "make Obama fail".
[quote name='bvharris']It's not Obama's fault, I'll agree with that. But the Republicans aren't really bringing an agenda of their own to the table other than "let's not do what Obama wants". Which, as it turns out, is a fantastic strategy, but certainly not anything approaching governance.
If Democrats are strong in their conviction that their policies will put this country on the right track (a belief I happen to share) than they should be fighting to enact those policies, 60 seats or not. It just feels to me like they're running scared at times. If Republicans are going to take control of the country back, I'd prefer Dems go down fighting for what they believe in. And if they can't fix it, then maybe they don't deserve to be running things, but for now I still think its a more palatable alternative than the party of "make Obama fail".[/QUOTE]
Republicans are running on a small gov't platform right now which entails doing the gov't doing less, not more.
If Democrats are strong in their conviction that their policies will put this country on the right track (a belief I happen to share) than they should be fighting to enact those policies, 60 seats or not. It just feels to me like they're running scared at times. If Republicans are going to take control of the country back, I'd prefer Dems go down fighting for what they believe in. And if they can't fix it, then maybe they don't deserve to be running things, but for now I still think its a more palatable alternative than the party of "make Obama fail".[/QUOTE]
Republicans are running on a small gov't platform right now which entails doing the gov't doing less, not more.
[quote name='bvharris']It's not Obama's fault, I'll agree with that. But the Republicans aren't really bringing an agenda of their own to the table other than "let's not do what Obama wants". Which, as it turns out, is a fantastic strategy, but certainly not anything approaching governance.
[/QUOTE]
The Republicans have been completely shut out of any meaningful dialogue by Pelosi and company, so you can't exactly blame them from resorting to obstructionist tactics.
[/QUOTE]
The Republicans have been completely shut out of any meaningful dialogue by Pelosi and company, so you can't exactly blame them from resorting to obstructionist tactics.
[quote name='Ruined']Republicans are running on a small gov't platform right now which entails doing the gov't doing less, not more.[/QUOTE]
I understand what the platform is, but the practical application is being the party which is against things, not for things. Ostensibly even Republican Senators feel that the government does have some role to play in our lives, otherwise it would be quite odd to see them running for Senate. Unless the goal is to just gum up the works. Scott Brown said it himself, he'll be the 41st vote against health care reform. It's truly the party of Against.
Like I said before, as it turns out that's a pretty savvy political strategy in a climate where people are scared and frustrated, but it's not about to make things any better than they are right now.
[quote name='dopa345']The Republicans have been completely shut out of any meaningful dialogue by Pelosi and company, so you can't exactly blame them from resorting to obstructionist tactics.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's not really remotely true. Republicans have removed themselves from the dialogue, not the other way around. I'd be the first to acknowledge failings in leadership by Pelosi and Reid, but they're not in the "reaching across the aisle" department. Republicans in Congress right now are simply not interested in being reached out to*. That's just the fact of the matter.
*Edit: That makes perfect sense from a political strategy perspective by the way. There's not really any incentive for them to compromise on things they campaigned against, especially when dragging their heels is increasingly looking like a winning strategy, since inaction and a lack of improvement will ultimately be blamed on the majority party.
I understand what the platform is, but the practical application is being the party which is against things, not for things. Ostensibly even Republican Senators feel that the government does have some role to play in our lives, otherwise it would be quite odd to see them running for Senate. Unless the goal is to just gum up the works. Scott Brown said it himself, he'll be the 41st vote against health care reform. It's truly the party of Against.
Like I said before, as it turns out that's a pretty savvy political strategy in a climate where people are scared and frustrated, but it's not about to make things any better than they are right now.
[quote name='dopa345']The Republicans have been completely shut out of any meaningful dialogue by Pelosi and company, so you can't exactly blame them from resorting to obstructionist tactics.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's not really remotely true. Republicans have removed themselves from the dialogue, not the other way around. I'd be the first to acknowledge failings in leadership by Pelosi and Reid, but they're not in the "reaching across the aisle" department. Republicans in Congress right now are simply not interested in being reached out to*. That's just the fact of the matter.
*Edit: That makes perfect sense from a political strategy perspective by the way. There's not really any incentive for them to compromise on things they campaigned against, especially when dragging their heels is increasingly looking like a winning strategy, since inaction and a lack of improvement will ultimately be blamed on the majority party.
[quote name='bvharris']I understand what the platform is, but the practical application is being the party which is against things, not for things. Ostensibly even Republican Senators feel that the government does have some role to play in our lives, otherwise it would be quite odd to see them running for Senate. Unless the goal is to just gum up the works. Scott Brown said it himself, he'll be the 41st vote against health care reform. It's truly the party of Against.
Like I said before, as it turns out that's a pretty savvy political strategy in a climate where people are scared and frustrated, but it's not about to make things any better than they are right now.[/QUOTE]
That's the whole point though. The whole purpose of the minority party is to oppose the majority party and make their life difficult. At any given time, either party is the "against" party.
Like I said before, as it turns out that's a pretty savvy political strategy in a climate where people are scared and frustrated, but it's not about to make things any better than they are right now.[/QUOTE]
That's the whole point though. The whole purpose of the minority party is to oppose the majority party and make their life difficult. At any given time, either party is the "against" party.
Sucks, but doesn't really change much as they couldn't even get a decent Health Care bill with public option etc. through the senate with the 60 vote majority.
Losing one more vote makes it a little harder to get progressive bills through for sure, but with so many dumb ass blue dog democrats who are democrat in name only any drastic changes were unrealistic anyway.
It sucks, but I've long since accepted that this country has too many right and center right folks for national policy to every match my beliefs, and I could either deal with it or move elsewhere.
The country is just too big and divided for any agenda too far from center, which just leaves us stagnant on most issues and makes changes painfully slow to enact. Vs say smaller European or Asian nations. Just a consequnce of being a union of states vs. a traditional, unified country, as well as how our system of government is set up.
Losing one more vote makes it a little harder to get progressive bills through for sure, but with so many dumb ass blue dog democrats who are democrat in name only any drastic changes were unrealistic anyway.
It sucks, but I've long since accepted that this country has too many right and center right folks for national policy to every match my beliefs, and I could either deal with it or move elsewhere.
The country is just too big and divided for any agenda too far from center, which just leaves us stagnant on most issues and makes changes painfully slow to enact. Vs say smaller European or Asian nations. Just a consequnce of being a union of states vs. a traditional, unified country, as well as how our system of government is set up.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']That's the whole point though. The whole purpose of the minority party is to oppose the majority party and make their life difficult. At any given time, either party is the "against" party.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that what you say is the political reality, but Republicans now aren't even making efforts towards proposing any meaningful agenda of their own. And I'm not blaming just the Republicans either, my own party has been awfully cowardly in pursuing their own convictions of late as well. It's a sad truth that probably 5% of government is governing and the other 95% is running for stuff. That's true for both sides.
[quote name='KingBroly']Reid said Brown would be seated when the paperwork arrived. I smell shenanigans![/QUOTE]
That's the law, right?
I don't disagree that what you say is the political reality, but Republicans now aren't even making efforts towards proposing any meaningful agenda of their own. And I'm not blaming just the Republicans either, my own party has been awfully cowardly in pursuing their own convictions of late as well. It's a sad truth that probably 5% of government is governing and the other 95% is running for stuff. That's true for both sides.
[quote name='KingBroly']Reid said Brown would be seated when the paperwork arrived. I smell shenanigans![/QUOTE]
That's the law, right?
This is big. The idea that a Republican running for Senate in Massachusetts would even be competitive, let alone WIN is absolutely absurd. I think the immediate results of this situation are going to be A. More or less a government shutdown. The GOP is going to filibuster everything from this point forward, and unless the Democrats can win Olympia Snowe over to their side of the aisle, nothing is going to be accomplished until November, and B. The Democrats are going to splinter at this point, with many, particularly House Democrats, distancing themselves from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Originally I figured the GOP would pick up a net gain of maybe two Senate seats and maybe a dozen or so House seats in November, now I think it might be closer to Five Senate seats, and forty or fifty House seats.
Originally I figured the GOP would pick up a net gain of maybe two Senate seats and maybe a dozen or so House seats in November, now I think it might be closer to Five Senate seats, and forty or fifty House seats.
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Good. The Dems weren't doing shit with their supermajority anyway. Why the 
do they deserve any sympathy? They pissed and whined about not being able to get anything done without a supermajority. When they got it, they did absolutely nothing with it. them.
Also, the writing was on the wall when she said Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan. She was out of touch with voters and had absolutely no intention of attempting to look like she was in touch. That is just one of the many examples of her idiocy. MA Dems picked the worst possible candidate, did no campaigning, and they got what they deserved.
Brown is clearly also atard, but this was a true political race between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
do they deserve any sympathy? They pissed and whined about not being able to get anything done without a supermajority. When they got it, they did absolutely nothing with it. them.Also, the writing was on the wall when she said Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan. She was out of touch with voters and had absolutely no intention of attempting to look like she was in touch. That is just one of the many examples of her idiocy. MA Dems picked the worst possible candidate, did no campaigning, and they got what they deserved.
Brown is clearly also a
tard, but this was a true political race between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bvharris']That's the law, right? [/QUOTE]
When Kennedy originally won the seat (special election, btw) he was seated the next day. Washington received the paperwork 3 weeks later. So much for "the law"
BTW, Webb says no health care vote until Brown is seated.
Today is a good day
Isn't it ironic that a Republican wins this seat because Kennedy is the one who asked for a Special Election in this type of situation?
[/QUOTE]When Kennedy originally won the seat (special election, btw) he was seated the next day. Washington received the paperwork 3 weeks later. So much for "the law"
BTW, Webb says no health care vote until Brown is seated.
Today is a good day
Isn't it ironic that a Republican wins this seat because Kennedy is the one who asked for a Special Election in this type of situation?
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Good. The Dems weren't doing shit with their supermajority anyway. Why the do they deserve any sympathy? They pissed and whined about not being able to get anything done without a supermajority. When they got it, they did absolutely nothing with it. them.
Also, the writing was on the wall when she said Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan. She was out of touch with voters and had absolutely no intention of attempting to look like she was in touch. That is just one of the many examples of her idiocy. MA Dems picked the worst possible candidate, did no campaigning, and they got what they deserved.
Brown is clearly also atard, but this was a true political race between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.[/QUOTE]
You hit it on the head. I think I could have moved back to Massachusetts and been a better candidate than Coakley.
Sadly, I actually think her policy positions are just where I'd like them, but you said it, she took it completely for granted and couldn't have been more out of touch.
Although there would have been a time when "Yankees fan" and "Republican" were pretty much synonymous in my home state. No longer apparently. I'm going to go follow the tradition of any good Irish Democrat from Massachusetts: Drink heavily.
do they deserve any sympathy? They pissed and whined about not being able to get anything done without a supermajority. When they got it, they did absolutely nothing with it. them.Also, the writing was on the wall when she said Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan. She was out of touch with voters and had absolutely no intention of attempting to look like she was in touch. That is just one of the many examples of her idiocy. MA Dems picked the worst possible candidate, did no campaigning, and they got what they deserved.
Brown is clearly also a
tard, but this was a true political race between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.[/QUOTE]You hit it on the head. I think I could have moved back to Massachusetts and been a better candidate than Coakley.
Sadly, I actually think her policy positions are just where I'd like them, but you said it, she took it completely for granted and couldn't have been more out of touch.
Although there would have been a time when "Yankees fan" and "Republican" were pretty much synonymous in my home state. No longer apparently. I'm going to go follow the tradition of any good Irish Democrat from Massachusetts: Drink heavily.
[quote name='KingBroly']When Kennedy originally won the seat (special election, btw) he was seated the next day. Washington received the paperwork 3 weeks later. So much for "the law"
[/QUOTE]
Sorry to get all history books on you, but the Senate wasn't in session when Ted Kennedy was sworn in. It was a completely different situation, so while he was sworn in the next day, he was not "seated". Plus, that was 40 years ago. Al Franken had to wait months, Scott Brown can wait a few weeks like everyone else.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry to get all history books on you, but the Senate wasn't in session when Ted Kennedy was sworn in. It was a completely different situation, so while he was sworn in the next day, he was not "seated". Plus, that was 40 years ago. Al Franken had to wait months, Scott Brown can wait a few weeks like everyone else.
[quote name='KingBroly']When Kennedy originally won the seat (special election, btw) he was seated the next day. Washington received the paperwork 3 weeks later. So much for "the law"
BTW, Webb says no health care vote until Brown is seated.
Today is a good day
Isn't it ironic that a Republican wins this seat because Kennedy is the one who asked for a Special Election in this type of situation?[/QUOTE]
Yep and of course, they didn't need it since Kerry lost. Karma is a female dog, isn't it?
BTW, Webb says no health care vote until Brown is seated.
Today is a good day
Isn't it ironic that a Republican wins this seat because Kennedy is the one who asked for a Special Election in this type of situation?[/QUOTE]
Yep and of course, they didn't need it since Kerry lost. Karma is a female dog, isn't it?
[quote name='KingBroly']That seat was pretty highly contested, though. This seat not so much.[/QUOTE]
Not that it matters, but I've yet to really see a credible reason why he should be seated earlier than the law demands (and as it is applied to every other currently sitting Senator). MA state law requires that all votes be counted and an election be certified before the Senator is sworn in. Not sure what's debatable about it, maybe you could fill me in?
He won, he's going to be seated, and he's going to be the "41st vote against". Why does he deserve to get in earlier than anyone else would?
Not that it matters, but I've yet to really see a credible reason why he should be seated earlier than the law demands (and as it is applied to every other currently sitting Senator). MA state law requires that all votes be counted and an election be certified before the Senator is sworn in. Not sure what's debatable about it, maybe you could fill me in?
He won, he's going to be seated, and he's going to be the "41st vote against". Why does he deserve to get in earlier than anyone else would?
[quote name='bvharris']Sorry to get all history books on you, but the Senate wasn't in session when Ted Kennedy was sworn in. It was a completely different situation, so while he was sworn in the next day, he was not "seated". Plus, that was 40 years ago. Al Franken had to wait months, Scott Brown can wait a few weeks like everyone else.[/QUOTE]
are you referring to the time there was a recount? or he had to wait months even after the recounts were finished?
are you referring to the time there was a recount? or he had to wait months even after the recounts were finished?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sucks, but doesn't really change much as they couldn't even get a decent Health Care bill with public option etc. through the senate with the 60 vote majority.
[/QUOTE]
this. no majority for a bastardize version of any useful reform.
the democrats are in trouble this fall. but dont worry, 6 years from then the republicans will be in trouble.
[/QUOTE]
this. no majority for a bastardize version of any useful reform.
the democrats are in trouble this fall. but dont worry, 6 years from then the republicans will be in trouble.
[quote name='myl0r']are you referring to the time there was a recount? or he had to wait months even after the recounts were finished?[/QUOTE]
The recount results were certified January 5th, he was sworn in on July 7th. So I guess take your pick. I wasn't claiming any particular injustice obviously, just saying that calls for Brown to be seated tomorrow are a little ridiculous.
The recount results were certified January 5th, he was sworn in on July 7th. So I guess take your pick. I wasn't claiming any particular injustice obviously, just saying that calls for Brown to be seated tomorrow are a little ridiculous.
[quote name='bvharris']The recount results were certified January 5th, he was sworn in on July 7th. So I guess take your pick. I wasn't claiming any particular injustice obviously, just saying that calls for Brown to be seated tomorrow are a little ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
well I was legitimately questioning it, I wasn't sure. I too think it's ridiculous to think Brown will get his seat tomorrow.
well I was legitimately questioning it, I wasn't sure. I too think it's ridiculous to think Brown will get his seat tomorrow.
[quote name='myl0r']well I was legitimately questioning it, I wasn't sure. I too think it's ridiculous to think Brown will get his seat tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
My favorite part is that people calling for that aren't even disguising the fact that it's so he can "be the critical 41st vote against health care reform." As if Senatorial policies and procedures are indistinguishable from and secondary to the political expediencies of the day. My former poli-sci professors would be rolling over in their graves if they were dead.
My favorite part is that people calling for that aren't even disguising the fact that it's so he can "be the critical 41st vote against health care reform." As if Senatorial policies and procedures are indistinguishable from and secondary to the political expediencies of the day. My former poli-sci professors would be rolling over in their graves if they were dead.
[quote name='dabamus']For now they have 59 senators and a house majority. I see that changing in the fall election.[/quote]
They may lose a few seats but if you see them losing the majority I say you are taking too much drugs or not enough.
Also I am just going throwing this out there but dopa and everyone else saying the Republicans were "shut out" of the process are lying. Simple as that.
They may lose a few seats but if you see them losing the majority I say you are taking too much drugs or not enough.
Also I am just going throwing this out there but dopa and everyone else saying the Republicans were "shut out" of the process are lying. Simple as that.
[quote name='bvharris']My favorite part is that people calling for that aren't even disguising the fact that it's so he can "be the critical 41st vote against health care reform." As if Senatorial policies and procedures are indistinguishable from and secondary to the political expediencies of the day. My former poli-sci professors would be rolling over in their graves if they were dead.[/QUOTE]
Seems like Ted Kennedy had no problem with that last year:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...g_ahead_urges_a_quick_filling_of_senate_seat/
Seems like Ted Kennedy had no problem with that last year:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...g_ahead_urges_a_quick_filling_of_senate_seat/
What a great day this was.
I hope this heralds the return of moderate Republicans, both parties are pursuing an agenda that is far more extreme than what most people support. The Democrats are hanging themselves by relentlessly pursuing this health care bill that the majority of the country is against.
I hope this heralds the return of moderate Republicans, both parties are pursuing an agenda that is far more extreme than what most people support. The Democrats are hanging themselves by relentlessly pursuing this health care bill that the majority of the country is against.
What would I lie about something that can be easily checked? Republicans have made over 60 proposals for amendments for the health care bill including health savings accounts, individual tax credits, tort reform, insurance competition over state lines etc. none of which really got any serious discussion. Look it up.
In addition to that, this bill isn't even being debated openly. Didn't Obama promise that they would air the deliberations on C-Span?
They're doing a ton of arm twisting and deal making within their own party as it is. How long have they had to get this thing passed now?
They're doing a ton of arm twisting and deal making within their own party as it is. How long have they had to get this thing passed now?
CaseyRyback
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']Being pro-active in pursuing their agenda is what led to this loss. What needs to change is who decides what their agenda is. Pelosi et al. needs the boot.[/QUOTE]
This statement is false. The problem isn't that they are pursuing their agenda, it is that they are pursuing their agenda in such a badly executed manner that it has pissed off their base. They elected people in 08 during a cry for change, what they have been given is more of the same. You can't promise the world and then deliver more of the same. If Obama had actually done something substantive during his first year and used his political capital within his first 100 days to get health care already passed the dems would have locked this seat up months ago.
This statement is false. The problem isn't that they are pursuing their agenda, it is that they are pursuing their agenda in such a badly executed manner that it has pissed off their base. They elected people in 08 during a cry for change, what they have been given is more of the same. You can't promise the world and then deliver more of the same. If Obama had actually done something substantive during his first year and used his political capital within his first 100 days to get health care already passed the dems would have locked this seat up months ago.
[quote name='Ruined']Seems like Ted Kennedy had no problem with that last year:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...g_ahead_urges_a_quick_filling_of_senate_seat/[/QUOTE]
Kennedy wanted his seat to be filled by an interim appointment before a special election. That happened. It was a question of Massachusetts law, as is this. It had to go through the state house, which it did. I fail to see how that relates to Scott Brown being sworn into the Senate before his election is certified.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...g_ahead_urges_a_quick_filling_of_senate_seat/[/QUOTE]
Kennedy wanted his seat to be filled by an interim appointment before a special election. That happened. It was a question of Massachusetts law, as is this. It had to go through the state house, which it did. I fail to see how that relates to Scott Brown being sworn into the Senate before his election is certified.
You said a lot of good things Dead of Knight, but I extracted the parts that everybody can agree on.
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Good. The Dems weren't doing shit with their supermajority anyway. Why the do they deserve any sympathy? They pissed and whined about not being able to get anything done without a supermajority. When they got it, they did absolutely nothing with it. them.
Brown is clearly also atard, but this was a true political race between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Good. The Dems weren't doing shit with their supermajority anyway. Why the
do they deserve any sympathy? They pissed and whined about not being able to get anything done without a supermajority. When they got it, they did absolutely nothing with it. them.Brown is clearly also a
tard, but this was a true political race between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.[/QUOTE]
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dafoomie']In addition to that, this bill isn't even being debated openly. Didn't Obama promise that they would air the deliberations on C-Span?
They're doing a ton of arm twisting and deal making within their own party as it is. How long have they had to get this thing passed now?[/QUOTE]
Yeah he did, and not just for health care, either. I expect them to try and pull something else, with disasterous results to follow.
They're doing a ton of arm twisting and deal making within their own party as it is. How long have they had to get this thing passed now?[/QUOTE]
Yeah he did, and not just for health care, either. I expect them to try and pull something else, with disasterous results to follow.
Where is all this negative stuff about Scott Brown coming from, aside from Coakley?
This point was raised on the news earlier. If Coakley won, she might've been put in a position to vote on a version of the bill which limited access to abortions. Its ironic that Brown could end up as the more pro choice candidate by opposing the bill.
This point was raised on the news earlier. If Coakley won, she might've been put in a position to vote on a version of the bill which limited access to abortions. Its ironic that Brown could end up as the more pro choice candidate by opposing the bill.
[quote name='dafoomie']This point was raised on the news earlier. If Coakley won, she might've been put in a position to vote on a version of the bill which limited access to abortions. Its ironic that Brown could end up as the more pro choice candidate by opposing the bill.[/QUOTE]
That's a bit of a stretch. Though Brown is pro-choice as far as I know, then again I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney was as well when he was running in MA, and now he's a rank and file conservative.
I think Brown might be a good deal more conservative when he reaches the Senate than most people in MA believe, but they've made their choice. I lived in MA for 18 years, and even in their highest hour of "sticking it to the man" I don't genuinely believe MA voters would be capable of electing someone who actually ran on a true conservative platform. It will be very interesting to see how he votes in the Senate, and whether there's some buyer's remorse at some point.
That's a bit of a stretch. Though Brown is pro-choice as far as I know, then again I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney was as well when he was running in MA, and now he's a rank and file conservative.
I think Brown might be a good deal more conservative when he reaches the Senate than most people in MA believe, but they've made their choice. I lived in MA for 18 years, and even in their highest hour of "sticking it to the man" I don't genuinely believe MA voters would be capable of electing someone who actually ran on a true conservative platform. It will be very interesting to see how he votes in the Senate, and whether there's some buyer's remorse at some point.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']the democrats are in trouble this fall. but dont worry, 6 years from then the republicans will be in trouble.[/QUOTE]
This.
The general public will ping pong back and forth between two abusive pimps - ignoring any good third party candidates on the side with actual plans willing to help.
This.
The general public will ping pong back and forth between two abusive pimps - ignoring any good third party candidates on the side with actual plans willing to help.
“Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law,’’ -Scott Brown
Yeah, we'll see if he sticks to his word. Isn't it hard to be an anti-choice candidate in MA?
Yeah, we'll see if he sticks to his word. Isn't it hard to be an anti-choice candidate in MA?
[quote name='IRHari']“Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental notification law,’’ -Scott Brown
Yeah, we'll see if he sticks to his word. Isn't it hard to be an anti-choice candidate in MA?[/QUOTE]
Nigh on impossible. If you want evidence of what it takes for a Republican to win in MA, look at Mitt Romney the gubernatorial candidate versus Mitt Romney the presidential candidate. Scott Brown strikes me as being of a similar mold. Which just reinforces that he ran a pretty much picture-perfect campaign.
Yeah, we'll see if he sticks to his word. Isn't it hard to be an anti-choice candidate in MA?[/QUOTE]
Nigh on impossible. If you want evidence of what it takes for a Republican to win in MA, look at Mitt Romney the gubernatorial candidate versus Mitt Romney the presidential candidate. Scott Brown strikes me as being of a similar mold. Which just reinforces that he ran a pretty much picture-perfect campaign.
[quote name='dafoomie']W
I hope this heralds the return of moderate Republicans, both parties are pursuing an agenda that is far more extreme than what most people support. [/QUOTE]
Meh, that get's back to my first post and what annoys me about the country. Every thing gets pulled back to the center and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
Worse, it's being drug back to the center by the undereducated and unwashed masses on both sides of the aisle who aren't very well informed and vote more based on their own uniformed belief systems and morals rather than a real understanding of government, economics, the common good etc.
Thus we're stuck in the current mess with deficits that can't be cut as we can't raise taxes or cut current programs (when both needs to happen), having an embarrassingly large number of uninsured people for being the most prosperous nation, an ridiculous gap in income and opportunity, and the resulting high crime rates etc. etc. etc. because its impossible to make any major changes in either direction.
I hope this heralds the return of moderate Republicans, both parties are pursuing an agenda that is far more extreme than what most people support. [/QUOTE]
Meh, that get's back to my first post and what annoys me about the country. Every thing gets pulled back to the center and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
Worse, it's being drug back to the center by the undereducated and unwashed masses on both sides of the aisle who aren't very well informed and vote more based on their own uniformed belief systems and morals rather than a real understanding of government, economics, the common good etc.
Thus we're stuck in the current mess with deficits that can't be cut as we can't raise taxes or cut current programs (when both needs to happen), having an embarrassingly large number of uninsured people for being the most prosperous nation, an ridiculous gap in income and opportunity, and the resulting high crime rates etc. etc. etc. because its impossible to make any major changes in either direction.
You're pulled back to the center because the few who hold the strongest convictions can not dictate policy to the rest of the country.
Congress pursued a very conservative agenda a few years ago and failed, and now they are pursuing a very liberal agenda, and failing. They can actually sit down and draft a bill with real reform and have broad support without all this other nonsense.
Congress pursued a very conservative agenda a few years ago and failed, and now they are pursuing a very liberal agenda, and failing. They can actually sit down and draft a bill with real reform and have broad support without all this other nonsense.
bread's done