Scott Brown Wins! Coakley concedes! Dem's lose 60 vote majority!

[quote name='dabamus']Well, she called and conceded, so it's over.

Thoughts?

I love it. The dems are going to finally see that the public is fed up with their policies and actions.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: The Dems went from super majority to plain majority in the Senate because they ran a horrible candidate in a very winnable race! Republicans must be popular again!

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Bravo Massachusets. Thanks for showing the country you're not a rubber stamp for the democrats.[/QUOTE]

You and Coakley have more in common then you think. For one thing, you both can't spell.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']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.[/QUOTE]

I happened to read Dmaul's post then this post then Dmaul's *sigh* comment under his name. The whole thing came together like it was planned.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']the democrats are in trouble this fall. but dont worry, 6 years from then the republicans will be in trouble.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, the politicians will come out just fine. It's the people who will be in trouble.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']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.[/QUOTE]

So we're stuck where we are, with no one on any side--or the center really--completely happy as we get no real solutions as we're stuck in the center with half assed solutions aimed at the lowest common denominator.

But again, nothing to be done in a country of this size, the state system, etc. etc.. It's just the reality of the beast. We'll see no real shifts left or right in major policy during our lifetimes likely, as things are just to divisive to see huge swings like the New Deal, LBJs war on poverity, Reagon's trickle down economics etc. happen again IMO.

I lean more and more toward just getting out and moving to a smaller country with a more liberal government and a more educated populace. Taiwan being the prime opportunity as my girlfriend is from there and likely wanting to move back fairly soon.

If not, I've at least isolated myself pretty well by getting a Ph D, a professor gig in a big city and being able to spend most of my time in the ivory tower with like minded folk! :D
 
[quote name='camoor']I happened to read Dmaul's post then this post then Dmaul's *sigh* comment under his name. The whole thing came together like it was planned.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, and it was the vs. forum a year or two back that got me to add that comment. :D

And why I seldom read this forum any more--that and having probably a quarter of the regular posters on ignore.
 
Centrists aren't simply people who lack an opinion. Most people's opinions generally do not entirely fall on one side of the political spectrum or another.

Its the people with more extreme views who tend to dumb down their agenda to attract voters. Bush ran on a Guns, Gays, and God platform, and Obama is turning to a populist strategy as his popularity is waning. Obama didn't even run on policy in the first place, he ran on the abstract ideas of hope and change.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Centrists aren't simply people who lack an opinion. Most people's opinions generally do not entirely fall on one side of the political spectrum or another.
[/QUOTE]

True, in reality some people go pretty far left on some issues, and pretty far right on others. They tend to have strong opinions that vary ideologically from issue to issue. The extremists on both sides are more the uniformed idiots who have strong opinions with little knowledge or logic behind them as they're all rhetoric and morals.

And thus centrists are often left unhappy as they at best get some half assed policy in the middle that doesn't match their view on the issue at hand as it usually skews one way or the other.

There aren't many people sitting right on the center of the fence on every issue (or any issue), thus the policies don't really represent anyones real views. Just a half assed compromise between right and left (and the "centrists who fall right or left on that particular issue).
 
I don't follow politics but joked with someone that all I ever saw was "Scott Brown is a dirty Republican" type ads about two or three times an hour. They told me absolutely nothing about Coakley. For that reason alone, I knew his name this whole time and didn't even know who she was until yesterday. What a horrible strategy.
 
[quote name='dabamus']For now they have 59 senators and a house majority. I see that changing in the fall election.

I think that the US people are getting fed up with Obama and his policies. A bunch of people interviewed on the news said they were voting for brown to "send a message."[/QUOTE]


and what a fucking stupid message it was. That is cool that insurance premiums have doubled in the last 8 years? That they support corporations more than the average person. Morons
 
Disgusting. MA finally outed themselves as the racist redneck state that they are by pissing on Ted Kennedy's warm corpse. The nerve of MA to elect a Republican to take the KENNEDY SEAT which will single-handedly kill the healthcare reform bill that Ted Kennedy championed his entire life -- the reform bill that was on the precipice of passage. Don't think for a minute that Ted Kennedy will rest in peace over this travesty done on his family's senate seat. His spirit is very pissed off and will enact merciless vengeance on you MA citizens for the rest of your lives.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Disgusting. MA finally outed themselves as the racist redneck state that they are by pissing on Ted Kennedy's warm corpse. The nerve of MA to elect a Republican to take the People's Seat which will single-handedly kill the healthcare reform bill that Ted Kennedy championed his entire life -- the reform bill that was on the precipice of passage. Don't think for a minute that Ted Kennedy will rest in peace over this travesty done on his family's senate seat. His spirit is very pissed off and will enact merciless vengeance on you MA citizens for the rest of your lives.[/QUOTE]

I am feasting on your sorrowful tears of sadness.
 
Cross posting here since this is where the action is:

[quote name='IRHari']One election in 30 years yields a Republican senator and...it's now officially purple? Really?[/QUOTE]

It's a stupid state, that's for sure, no matter the color.

http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues

Look at his stances on issues. Vapid, 75-word responses to major political issues. Most of his stances take the form of reframing "I'm against _____" to "I support _____." Nevertheless, it's the typical political platform of simply being against something. Being against something is easy.

Which is why he was successful - Coakley's gaffes certainly helped, but for fuck's sake, her lil' Curt Shilling gaffe made loads of media copy, but it's a stupid gaffe that's wholly unrelated to her, or anyone's, ability to govern politically. She fucked her image with that gaffe, which people regard as important - that she said a naughty thing about a beloved fucking baseball pitcher killed her.

Brown was elected for a number of reasons, none of which was any actual platform of his. I've seen stances on issues ten times as long (literally) for people running for mayor of a podunk town, let alone a Senate seat. He offered nothing except what people crave right now: someone who identifies with an intellectually lazy "grumble-washington-grumble" mentality. People applaud an empty stance like "I stand for lower taxes," and feel like they're an informed voter instead of the simpleton they truly are.

But that's why people buy "Slim-Fast" milkshakes, that they drink while sitting on their fucking asses not doing anything to actually become healthy. The American Dream isn't unfettered capitalism, it's uninterrupted leisure without any of the negative side effects. That's why it's a dream.

Obama will have been in office for precisely 1 year as of tomorrow. The public willingly neglects the historical context in which Obama's stimulus bill passed - a recession, the scope of which we have not seen since the Great Depression - and instead brays about "tax and spend" Democrats. They neglect the shedding of jobs, they neglect the recession which started in mid-2007, over 2 years ago, when the housing bubble burst, and those select few who try to be informed about it lie to themselves by blaming the Community Reinvestment Act, as opposed to the 85%+ of subprime mortgages which helped the bubble grow and burst, yet were not under the purview of the CRA.

Was the stimulus a great idea? Time will tell. All I know is that right now I'm sick of everybody and everything in politics. A moron was elected because people with voting power and no intelligence elected someone because of what they stood against, what they perceived they stood against, and the villains that they stood against which were mere phantoms in the minds of voters. The Democrats put a jobber up to run for Kennedy's seat and lost because they were full of hubris.

Most of all, I'm sick to my stomach because voters have already forgotten what the world was like from 2001-2009 under Bush. They forgot how they stretched the limits of constitutionality and went beyond that, how the Republicans ran roughshod over the national debt, and their sitting Presidents sat for over 75% of its total accumulation since 1980, they forgot about a phony war in Iraq, they forgot about detainment of citizens without due process rights, the slashing of habeas corpus. The public's memory goes about 6 minutes into the past to evaluate their lives to that point and they vote as if the first 8 years of this decade never fucking happened.

Most of all, I'm sick because the public has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the new message of conservatives, which is to engage the framework of being "against Washington," but emphasizing conservative viewpoints and vagaries. These "tea bag" motherfuckers bought a copy of Doki Doki Panic because it was called Super Mario Bros. 2, and didn't know any better.

And don't get me started on the "can't do anything with a supermajority" Democrats, because these are largely the same congresspersons who bent over backwards for Bush for 8 years. I dare you to name me a SINGLE PIECE of legislation that the Republicans did not pass, in whole, under Bush. Name me a single successful Democrat bit of obstructionism. Yet they can't do a single thing right in 1 year and more people than the Republicans had.

fuck fuck fuck. Really. I'm so fucking sick right now of how fucking magnificently stupid people are.
 
[quote name='rumblebear'] Don't think for a minute that Ted Kennedy will rest in peace over this travesty done on his family's senate seat. [/QUOTE]


I wonder how Mary Jo is resting now.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I dare you to name me a SINGLE PIECE of legislation that the Republicans did not pass, in whole, under Bush.[/QUOTE]

Social Security?
 
[quote name='dopa345']What would I lie about something that can be easily checked?[/QUOTE]

It being an easily debunked lie never stopped anyone against healthcare reform from lying about it before.

It might be just because you are generally clueless but in this case I doubt it.

There is simply no way someone can say with a straight face that republicans were "shut out" (unless you mean they shut themselves out) the process was halted for months trying to get Republicans on board for example.

Anyone, including you saying the Democrats shut them out is a liar plain and simple.

From the beginning Republicans had zero intention of ever working with Democrats or passing anything that could be called reform.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']Social Security?[/QUOTE]

touche. curse those know-nothing Democrats, can you imagine how wonderful social security would be now if we allowed people to invest in the market?
 
Way to raise the intellectual bar, folks.

There's so much obstructionism instead of genuine debate anymore that y'all know more about Mary Jo than you do about any of the attempts at health care reform this year.

It's why we can't have anything nice, because y'all would prefer to hurl insults like you're playing 'the dozens' or trying out to be the WWF champion instead of discussing actual political points.

Let me bring this full circle: nobody voted for Scott Brown for something he stood for.

EDIT: And I'm full aware of alleged murders by Republicans with as much connecting evidence as Kennedy's case, but I'm not playing your childish game.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']touche. curse those know-nothing Democrats, can you imagine how wonderful social security would be now if we allowed people to invest in the market?[/QUOTE]

Let's ask some Congressional members. They have first-hand experience.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Way to raise the intellectual bar, folks.

There's so much obstructionism instead of genuine debate anymore that y'all know more about Mary Jo than you do about any of the attempts at health care reform this year.

It's why we can't have anything nice, because y'all would prefer to hurl insults like you're playing 'the dozens' or trying out to be the WWF champion instead of discussing actual political points.

Let me bring this full circle: nobody voted for Scott Brown for something he stood for.

EDIT: And I'm full aware of alleged murders by Republicans with as much connecting evidence as Kennedy's case, but I'm not playing your childish game.[/QUOTE]

After your flaming orange rant above, you're now worried about genuine debate and childish games?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Let's ask some Congressional members. They have first-hand experience.[/QUOTE]

The Bushies attempt at Social Security reform failed when it became clear it was actually a drive to dismantle it, in the end it died because of Republicans almost just as much because of the Democrats.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let me bring this full circle: nobody voted for Scott Brown for something he stood for.[/QUOTE]
I voted for Scott Brown today because he believes you can better achieve economic growth through lowering taxes and reducing spending than by giving away trillions of dollars, spending even more money on government health care, and either increasing the deficit to unsustainable levels or raising taxes.

I voted for Scott Brown because he supports my 2nd amendment rights, and he's pro choice while against late term abortions. He's against illegal immigration, for the death penalty, and doesn't care about gay marriage. He is the candidate that most reflects my views.

I voted for Scott Brown because I wanted a moderate voice to shift Congress from the left and the Republican party from the right.

Of course Brown is running largely on a platform of opposition, because as the minority party thats what you do. What the hell did Martha Coakley run on? Scott Brown hates rape victims. Scott Brown wants to give your money away to the rich. Scott Brown is a Republican like Bush and Cheney. Say what you will about Brown, but his campaign was 100% about Scott Brown and policy (and his truck), he ran a clean campaign with a positive message, and not a single attack ad.

Martha Coakley's entire campaign was also 100% about Scott Brown and 0% about her, because her people realized she was unelectable right after Mike Capuano did. She made ridiculous claims that even her most ardent supporters knew weren't true.

That Yankees comment she made got no play here whatsoever. None, it was silly. The comments that drew attention were her comments on Afghanistan ("There are no terrorists in Afghanistan."), her comments on Catholics ("Catholics shouldn't work in the ER"), her comments on taxes ("We need to get taxes up"), and her comments regarding not shaking hands out in the cold at Fenway while she'd rather be out meeting mayors, school committee members, union leaders, and other political players instead of the people. She came off as an elitist snob throughout her campaign.

Her claims about denying care to rape victims and her statements about Catholics were particularly galling in a state thats 48% Catholic. This is akin to running in Utah and declaring that Mormons should not work in Emergency Rooms, its political suicide. What Brown actually did was to introduce an amendment to a bill that required all Massachusetts hospitals to provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. He wanted to allow medical professionals to be able to recuse themselves from this practice and substitute another worker in their place, and if no one at the hospital was available, they would immediately transfer the patient to another hospital at their cost. When this amendment was rejected, he voted in favor of the bill anyway, and once again voted to override Mitt Romney's veto of the bill. Broader exceptions than this already exist federally. But Martha Coakley somehow turns this reasonable provision into this:

rapemailer1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think why dafoomie is trying to say is brown made the race about Massachusetts and coakley made the race about democrats.

coakley is just another democrat who would rather play political games with republicans rather than make a difference. it's been the democrats weakness over the last 20 years. everytime there given the chance to do something significant they'reore than to bend over for the GOP instead.
 
I agree with dafoomie and RAM. Dems have made little progress the last two years because they've continued to play the game even after they won. They could've forced any legislation through both houses of Congress but they still complained that it was all the Repubs fault. Time to look in the mirror and take the blame.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Disgusting. MA finally outed themselves as the racist redneck state that they are by pissing on Ted Kennedy's warm corpse. The nerve of MA to elect a Republican to take the KENNEDY SEAT which will single-handedly kill the healthcare reform bill that Ted Kennedy championed his entire life -- the reform bill that was on the precipice of passage. Don't think for a minute that Ted Kennedy will rest in peace over this travesty done on his family's senate seat. His spirit is very pissed off and will enact merciless vengeance on you MA citizens for the rest of your lives.[/QUOTE]

Ummm isn't it the good people of Massachusetts who own the seat ... not the Kennedy's? Goes to show who the redneck really is doesn't it?

I'm glad Brown won ... Coakley was a tool bag stuffed in a tool shed.
 
I would have voted for Scott Brown not because he is a republican, but because he was running with policies and not running against Bush and Cheney. Also because he knew the seat belonged to the public in MA and not to Kennedy or the Dems.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The Bushies attempt at Social Security reform failed when it became clear it was actually a drive to dismantle it, in the end it died because of Republicans almost just as much because of the Democrats.[/QUOTE]

You missed my point, but that's okay.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I voted for Scott Brown today because he believes you can better achieve economic growth through lowering taxes and reducing spending than by giving away trillions of dollars[/quote]
Starving the government of tax dollars while not also reducing the size of government isn't helpful. It's just dumb. I'd like to see evidence that Scott Brown would do something helpful in this regard.
spending even more money on government health care
Says the guy with socialist medicine.
and either increasing the deficit to unsustainable levels or raising taxes.
Starving the government of tax dollars while not also reducing the size of government isn't helpful. It's just dumb. I'd like to see evidence that Scott Brown would do something helpful in this regard.
I voted for Scott Brown because he supports my 2nd amendment rights
In the last 12 months, exactly how many gun bills have come up to a vote?
and he's pro choice
This won't be voted on.
while against late term abortions.
This won't be voted on anytime soon.
He's against illegal immigration
This won't be voted on.
for the death penalty
This won't be voted on.
and doesn't care about gay marriage.
We'll see.
 
[quote name='camoor']:rofl: The Dems went from super majority to plain majority in the Senate because they ran a horrible candidate in a very winnable race! Republicans must be popular again!



You and Coakley have more in common then you think. For one thing, you both can't spell.[/QUOTE]

... and neither of us will be serving in the United States senate either!

Oh and by the way, correcting someone for accidentally mis-typing Massachusetts and missing the extra "t" doesn't make you an intelluctual superior, it just makes you a pompous ass.

On another side note, when correcting someone on what you perceive as a spelling error, make sure you use the correct form of "than." I'm just sayin'...
 
more or less, what speedracer said. you're justifying your vote by either putting up issues that are irrelevant because you know they're not going to be challenged or saying "I agree with him!" when his position on an issue is simply to be an obstructionist.

You've elected a brick wall to Congress - someone who's going to serve as legislative interference and never propose a bill, amendment, or piece of legislation worth a damn (if any at all). 3 years down the line, if you want to fall prey to the political charades, you'll ask rhetorical questions (like dopa does of congressional republicans right now) that claim a phony "victim" status. "Why won't the Democrats work with my brick wall? Why is my brick wall shut off from debate and negotiation? I elected a brick wall to the Senate, and the Democrats just ignore him! This is unfair and unconscionable! My brick wall deserves to have a say (even if he won't speak)!"

Okay, the gay marriage thing may come up. But abortions or guns? Come on, dude, you know better than that. You're acting like Brown has a genuine platform because of the paltry 70-word quasi-position gleaned from his website, and you're acting like these are issues that will come up ("DEY GUN TEK URR GUNNZZ!"). Really, these stances are akin to voting someone because they prefer Boston Terriers to Yorkshire Terriers (that would get my vote!). It's a nice bit of lip service to something and might make you feel fancy inside because your elected representative agrees with you on something. But it's not something of substance, and it's not something that will come up.

At least dopa acknowledges that his votes are guided by his quest for more almighty dollars in his medical chest (as is the case with anyone who lies to themselves in thinking that nothing more than "tort reform" will mean substantive, several-fold reduction in health care costs) than anything else.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']You missed my point, but that's okay.[/QUOTE]

I was just trying to steer things back towards substance.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Disgusting. MA finally outed themselves as the racist redneck state that they are by pissing on Ted Kennedy's warm corpse. The nerve of MA to elect a Republican to take the KENNEDY SEAT which will single-handedly kill the healthcare reform bill that Ted Kennedy championed his entire life -- the reform bill that was on the precipice of passage. Don't think for a minute that Ted Kennedy will rest in peace over this travesty done on his family's senate seat. His spirit is very pissed off and will enact merciless vengeance on you MA citizens for the rest of your lives.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

It's that exact same attiude that allowed kings and emperors to rule the world for so long.
 
[quote name='Msut77']WTF is with all the dumbfucks responding to rumblebear as if he hasn't been trolling this board for years?[/QUOTE]

I'm amazed nobody picked up on his sarcasm.

I'm thinking about posting something insanely sarcastic, but I don't want it taken seriously.

Should I still post it?

Should I post it, but include the tags so everybody gets it?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm amazed nobody picked up on his sarcasm.

I'm thinking about posting something insanely sarcastic, but I don't want it taken seriously.

Should I still post it?

Should I post it, but include the tags so everybody gets it?[/QUOTE]

The thing about rumblebear is that he has been doing this for about half a decade with practically no "real" posts.
 
[quote name='Msut77']WTF is with all the dumbfucks responding to rumblebear as if he hasn't been trolling this board for years?[/QUOTE]

I don't much attention to who posts what and I certainly don't put enough thought into tracking it. Looking through his older posts i'm not entirely convinced rumblebear is a troll account though.

Eh, if you're gonna call me a dumbfuck because I don't do a better job of living through this website, oh well.
 
I keep hearing all this stuff about how Mass already has "socialized healthcare", so electing Brown was just their way of giving a big "screw you" to the rest of the country...

Maybe it's their way of telling the rest of the country "We addressed health care reform at the state level - you can too." Maybe it's their way of saying they don't approve of special secret deals with individual states like Nebraska while the other 49 states get screwed. Maybe it's their way of saying they don't like Barack "Open Door" Obama's secret backroom meetings with the various unions and the awesome deal he gave them of not taxing their "Cadillac" policies while taxing everyone else's.

Or - maybe - the citizens of Massachusetts simply aren't happy with their own "Universal Health Care"... http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...9/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/
 
The problem with that argument starts with your incorrect use of the term 'socialized healthcare.' It's not.

It's also a watered down, pro-insurance industry approach - the watered down, neutered and hijacked by Nelson and Leibermann bill looks like Massachusetts' program.

So you can come to two conclusions:
1) health care reform is bad
2) moderate health care reform is bad

The people who think #1 point to Mass' plan as evidence why universal coverage can't work. But the reality for those who think #2 is that Massachusetts demonstrates that moderate, middle-of-the-road, half-ass health care reform plans don't work. The health care plan is Mitt Romney's doing, is it not?

So you can take a passge from your linked op-ed:

What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

The state's plan flunks on all counts.

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

and discover that they're arguing against coverage that doesn't decimate the insurance industry, that isn't tied to your job, and that is inexpensive. And as long as you have private insurance hands in there, you can not simply come to the conclusion that it's expensive because it's a government plan. You can't separate the two effects.

So you may read this as something that shows the public is against health care reform altogether, or you can read this just as easily to think the author is saying they want a single-player universal coverage system. In fact, looking at the op-ed writer's concluding remarks, it's far easier to come to this conclusion than it is to think that they support the false idol of "market self-correction."

But myke! That's just some nutty liberalism - the kind that thinks the stimulus bill didn't spend nearly enough to be as effective as it could be! Yes, I think that is the case, too. People are scared to death and violently opposed to the idea that the stimulus spending should have been twice what it is - but there's no genuine substantive argument that articulates why it shouldn't have been larger than it was. The only argument against it being larger is a thoughtless WWF-media driven reactionary "gubmint spending BAD!" philosophy, which, while it's noble to want to reign in government spending, this screaming came from people who didn't give a flying fuck about spending for 8 years, and suddenly are concerned about deficit spending now that we're balls deep in what could easily have been the first economic depression since the 1930's. Tautological, empty, thoughtless reactions that say "spending BAD" have no place at the voting booth when they don't take into account the extraordinary circumstances we've been in since mid-2007, and they seem disingenuous when these voices have been absent for the previous $12T of debt we've accumulated.

So the same mentality applies to health care. People argue against the ultra liberal single-payer universal coverage form on no actual articulated merit other than "spending BAD; liberal BAD; socialism BAD." So in the end we get a bill that looks like the health care shitshow Massachusetts has, and we all suffer even more.

Thanks for voting before thinking, folks. Maybe we'll get some real politicians in there - vote Republican, because they'll grow the economy, shrink the debt, and give you back your guns and bibles and straight marriages that you've lost in Obama's first year in office. After all, look at Republicans from 2001-2009; small government, states' rights, decreased spending and balanced budgets are everything they stood for.

Oh, man - remember those Bush budget surpluses? damn, them were the days.
 
Myke: I put those quote marks there for a reason... But I was responding to posts like this:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6745722&postcount=77
[quote name='IRHari']So, has anyone other than Colbert/Stewart pointed out the irony here? That the one state with a MORE progressive healthcare plan than Obamacare is determining the fate of Obamacare.

Colbert says a Brown win would send this message to the nation: "I got mine Jack. You can suck it."[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Maybe we'll get some real politicians in there because they'll give you small government, states' rights, decreased spending and balanced budgets.[/QUOTE]

That's all I got from your essay.
 
IMO reading this special election at a national level is a mistake, and the conservatives have been drinking too much of the kool-aid.

MA voters were unimpressed with the by-the-numbers dem choice and in a prime position to be serenaded by a cardboard cutout contrarian conservative. The "party of no" playbook may work for now, it may even work in two years, but it's got a put-up-or-shutup expiration date that's going to come due after the next election.

Switching from pragmatism to policy Myke is absolutely right - the enemy of the moral choice and greater efficiency is stupidity, something that America has in droves.
 
[quote name='camoor']IMO reading this special election at a national level is a mistake, and the conservatives have been drinking too much of the kool-aid.

MA voters were unimpressed with the by-the-numbers dem choice and in a prime position to be serenaded by a cardboard cutout contrarian conservative. The "party of no" playbook may work for now, it may even work in two years, but it's got a put-up-or-shutup expiration date that's going to come due after the next election.

Switching from pragmatism to policy Myke is absolutely right - the enemy of the moral choice and greater efficiency is stupidity, something that America has in droves.[/QUOTE]

Cons can be very good at electioneering, it is the whole governing thing they can't handle.

Like you were saying they have zero national message so they might pick up seats but there is no way in hell they will gain the majority any time soon and with 41 seats they might have to pretend to care about pretending to help run the country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']more or less, what speedracer said. you're justifying your vote by either putting up issues that are irrelevant because you know they're not going to be challenged or saying "I agree with him!" when his position on an issue is simply to be an obstructionist.

*snip*

Okay, the gay marriage thing may come up. But abortions or guns? Come on, dude, you know better than that.

*snip*
[/QUOTE]

[quote name='mykevermin']
Thanks for voting before thinking, folks. Maybe we'll get some real politicians in there - vote Republican, because they'll grow the economy, shrink the debt, and give you back your guns and bibles and straight marriages that you've lost in Obama's first year in office. After all, look at Republicans from 2001-2009; small government, states' rights, decreased spending and balanced budgets are everything they stood for.

Oh, man - remember those Bush budget surpluses? damn, them were the days.[/QUOTE]


Exactly, that's what I was getting at in railing against uninformed voters on both sides of the aisle.

People vote on hot button issues like Abortion, 2nd amendment rights etc. that will never see any sweeping changes. Especially not at the congressional level. Maybe worry about such issues a bit in voting for presidents who appoint Supreme Court justices--as a few presidents in a row with similar views could end up with the court stacked in a way to change things. But even that isn't very likely.

And people vote the party line based on the rhetoric of what they think a candidate's party stands for, rather than what recent actions show about the current direction of the party in practice.

[quote name='camoor']IMO reading this special election at a national level is a mistake, and the conservatives have been drinking too much of the kool-aid.
[/QUOTE]

I do think it's important to not read to much into it. But at the same time with this, and republicans taking the NJ and VA governors race, poll numbers pretty strong against health care reform (especially with public option), Obama's falling approval ratings, etc. etc. that there is cause for concern. It's hard to see the democrats not losing more seats this fall unless there's a major change between now and then.

The country seems hell bent on electing a president and then switching congress to the other party so little gets accomplished as that's been happening since Clinton's first term.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I voted for Scott Brown because he [...] doesn't care about gay marriage.[/quote]
Brown was one of only three members of the heavily Democratic State Senate to vote against a repeal of a state law that barred out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. Later, he would vote for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - for which he earned the endorsement of the group The Coalition for Marriage -- and he opposed the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
wat

Well done Brown.
The state senator has also voted against stem cell research funding
Progress.
 
bread's done
Back
Top