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

Has anyone thought that rather than a huge vote against Obama, that this is actually a vote against an insane, inept candidate in Coakley? I didn't follow it all that closely, because I really didn't care, but the media snippets I saw showed Coakley as out of touch, out of her league, and a bumbling fool. Still not sure if she's an upgrade over Drunk, Dead Teddy or not.

This is pretty much what happens when you have a majority of congress in the same party as the president, the pendulum swings the other way, and the opposing party seats far more than they could when their guy was in the White House.

I expect this to change nothing in the long term. In the short term Rush and Hannity can beat their chests and read far more into it than the average American cares to.
 
Daily Kos sums up things nicely.

It's not just why Scott Brown won that matters -- even more important is why it matters that Scott Brown won.


Remember, last night we went from a 60-40 Democratic majority to 59-41. On Tuesday, we had a 20-vote margin in the Senate. On Wednesday, we had an 18-vote margin.


In any other legislative body, Brown's victory would have been completely inconsequential. But in the United States Senate, thanks to the Democratic willingness to let Republicans abuse the filibuster rule, going from 60-40 to 59-41 makes all the difference in the world.


The pathetic thing here is that it didn't have to be this way. For the past year, progressives have been arguing that Democrats should push the envelope on Senate rules and exploit procedures like reconciliation that allow them to pass legislation with a simple majority.


Sure, such procedures aren't perfect. But as we've been told time and time again, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.


Yet here we are in the latter half of January, 2010, one vote short of 60 in the Senate, and staring at a complete and total lack of ability to move forward on anything because the Democratic leadership has not raised its voice against the filibuster, nor have they set forth the arguments for how they will get around it.


Instead of challenging the filibuster, Democrats have bought into the notion that you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation.


Bullshit.


You need 50+1 votes to pass legislation in the U.S. Senate. On most measures, you can block a vote with just 41 Senators, but that is just a Senate rule, and that can be changed. Now that the GOP is abusing it in unprecedented fashion, the argument for changing the filibuster is as strong as it has ever been.


But Democrats have shown zero interests in doing so. They seem to like the idea of letting 41 Republicans rule the roost. They may not agree on policy, but they sure do agree that 41 is greater than 59.


At this point, it seems that the Democratic plan is to hope Republicans will work with them. Who knows? Maybe they will strike gold. But everything we've learned in the last year tells us that Republicans will not be willing to work with Democrats.


And why should they? After a year of Limbaugh and Beck and Fox and teabagging, the Republican plan of lurching hard right and using the threat of a filibuster to block progress on just about every major issue has worked like charm. They've scared the Democratic Party shitless. They've rendered Democrats impotent.


Why would Republicans change course now? Why should they? Democrats haven't challenged their abuse of Senate procedure in any sort of meaningful way. What risk is there for Republicans in pursuing their strategy?


We can debate endlessly about why exactly Scott Brown won, but the point is that his victory shouldn't matter as much as it does.


But yet it does matter. It matters so much because the Senate is a completely dysfunctional institution, and even though Republicans have been the driving force behind that dysfunction, Democrats have been all-too-willing to go along with the GOP.


Sure, it's beyond idiotic. It's the height of stupidity. But it's also what happened. And now we're seeing the consequences.


For Democrats, the only way out will be challenging the notion that 41 Republicans should be able to dictate legislative outcomes. But given Democratic acceptance of the filibuster rule, it might be too late.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='KingBroly']It's like they're saying what Republicans were saying 6 years ago. Truly we've entered the Twilight Zone.[/QUOTE]
Tom Delay was the Majority Leader 6 years ago. The Hammer never had a problem smashing votes into line. I'm no fan of the Democratic way of doing business in the legislature, but I much prefer it to the borderline lockstep psychosis of the Republican lege during Delay's tenure at Leader.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't like the way democrats are doing things.

We have two parties for a reason (and really should have more). When one side gets a majority, they should hammer through things they (and most of their supporters) believe in, and not worry so much about consensus for fear of putting their necks on the line for the next election.

The goal of politicians should be to get through legislation they believe in, not have their main focus be keeping their job as long as possible and advancing to higher rungs in the political system.

With that as the focus, everything gets stuck in the center with real change near impossible to bring about.

When you have a majority, hammer through your party's platform. When the other side takes over they can hammer through there's. That's a better way to have balance, and still allow changes to happen. Versus hammering stuff through and giving new policies a chance to be in place for a view years and be evaluated on actual results vs. just debated on speculation and rhetoric and compromised in two worth, half assed center policies.

Some changes will just get done away with when they expire and aren't renewed when the other party takes over. But the changes that end up having a positive impact will become accepted and stick around regardless of who's in power.

For instance, if they dems hammered through a health care plan with a public option, and in 10 years it was shown to be working well, covering more people, not running huge deficits, not lowring the quality of care etc., then even republicans would support keeping it at that point in time.

If it was a failure, they could scrap it or make the needed changes.

That's the way the system should work. Not this worthless system of catering to the other side and getting nothing through but half assed policies that have no chance of making any major difference.
 
People were mad at Bush so they elect Obama.
In less than a year, people are mad at Obama so they elect Brown.
At this rate I expect the numbskulls in MA to recall Brown in 6 months and put a raccoon in there.
 
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/the-democrats-day-after/?scp=1&sq=skocpol&st=cse

Lots of good opinions here. Theda Skocpol (a sociologist!) has some incredibly poignant remarks:

"What is more, after Al Franken’s election, the media told us the Democrats had 60 Senate votes, and Republicans taunted them with that. But of course they never did. They had Lieberman, a one-man wrecking ball beholden to no party."

""Democrats, in the end, are setting America and their party up to fail, by not figuring out how to move things with huge majorities short of 60 in the Senate. Why vote for them, people will say, if they cannot do anything anyway? Or worse, if they engage in unseemly bargains to buy individual Senators’ votes with measures against the public interest.

Good questions."

"The dirty secret is that modern post-1980 Republicans believe government is the problem, and they are determined to use government’s own rules to keep government from working for most Americans!"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think dafoomie meant Brown doesn't care *for* gay marriage. Not *about*, as we'd see abstain votes on that end from him.[/QUOTE]
He correctly regards it as an issue that should be left to the states and not taken up as a crusade by either side at the federal level. I don't believe that government should necessarily be in the marriage business, but I supported allowing them to marry here. It doesn't bother me if they marry, and our state makes millions of dollars every year on it. Gay tourism is booming in Provincetown.

[quote name='speedracer']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.[/quote]
I'm pretty confident that he is in favor of less spending than Martha Coakley. Joseph L. Kennedy was better in this regard but he was never going to win.

[quote name='speedracer']Says the guy with socialist medicine.[/quote]
We have a law requiring all residents to have private health insurance or pay a large tax penalty. If you can't afford private insurance, you are provided with partially subsidized private insurance. I'm not a huge fan of it, but its a far cry from ObamaCare. Plus, if I'm already paying for this, why do I want to subsidize the rest of the country on top of that?

There are anti-gun bills in congress, but everything has taken a back seat to ObamaCare. I realize the rest of that isn't in much danger of changing, but the point was made that Brown stands for nothing except to oppose others which is patently absurd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think people are forgetting that he's only serving the last 2 years of Kennedy's term before he has to be elected again. If we don't like him, we have no shortage of liberals who aren't Martha Coakley that we can elect instead.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I'm pretty confident that he is in favor of less spending than Martha Coakley.[/quote]
Where does this confidence come from, and what does it mean in real terms? I also favor less spending. I'd cut the DoD by 20% tomorrow. Has this person that has just been elected to the Senate made any meaningful statements supporting this confidence or outlining a real position?
I realize the rest of that isn't in much danger of changing, but the point was made that Brown stands for nothing except to oppose others which is patently absurd.
Click to expand...
When a politician is running on a "no" platform, they speak in platitudes. When they want to get things done, they talk about plans. Where are these plans?

I'm not saying that Coakley or whatever is the better choice or any nonsense like that. I'm just saying that the only real difference I see is that one of them wants to stop the agenda and one doesn't. That's fine, but maybe an actual plan from a person (and a party) that means to be a real part of governance would be a good idea.

The Dow only lost 140 points today. Clearly the market loves Scott Brown like Jim Cramer said.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Tom Delay was the Majority Leader 6 years ago. The Hammer never had a problem smashing votes into line. I'm no fan of the Democratic way of doing business in the legislature, but I much prefer it to the borderline lockstep psychosis of the Republican lege during Delay's tenure at Leader.[/QUOTE]

The article was about the Senate, not the House. Same sentiments, different parties, different times.
 
[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]

Obama has been in the White House for one year and has enacted little or none of his agenda, and yet people are fed up with his policies?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Where does this confidence come from, and what does it mean in real terms? I also favor less spending. I'd cut the DoD by 20% tomorrow. Has this person that has just been elected to the Senate made any meaningful statements supporting this confidence or outlining a real position?

When a politician is running on a "no" platform, they speak in platitudes. When they want to get things done, they talk about plans. Where are these plans?

I'm not saying that Coakley or whatever is the better choice or any nonsense like that. I'm just saying that the only real difference I see is that one of them wants to stop the agenda and one doesn't. That's fine, but maybe an actual plan from a person (and a party) that means to be a real part of governance would be a good idea.

The Dow only lost 140 points today. Clearly the market loves Scott Brown like Jim Cramer said.[/QUOTE]
What do you want a first year Senator in a minority party with only a 2 year term to plan on doing?

He ran on a platform of an across the board tax cut and reduced spending. Its unlikely that the Republicans can make meaningful budget cuts with the votes they have, but Brown represents a vote against ObamaCare, and cap and trade. Neither candidate outlined a specific plan to address anything and I would not expect either candidate to have the clout to execute such a plan.

Brown has a track record as a state legislator of generally opposing tax increases. Coakley, as a former prosecutor and DA, has no track record.

As for the Dow, commodities are getting hammered because China is reducing lending. The Dow was up yesterday largely due to health care companies.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']What do you want a first year Senator in a minority party with only a 2 year term to plan on doing?[/quote]
Am I off base by suggesting that when someone makes reduced spending one of only two planks in the platform, that it would be reasonable to ask how that would come about?
Its unlikely that the Republicans can make meaningful budget cuts with the votes they have, but Brown represents a vote against ObamaCare, and cap and trade.
Click to expand...
We can stop talking about them like they're cripples as soon as they stop acting that way.
Neither candidate outlined a specific plan to address anything and I would not expect either candidate to have the clout to execute such a plan.
Click to expand...
Right, this just kind of seems counter intuitive when framed against your strong support.
As for the Dow, commodities are getting hammered because China is reducing lending. The Dow was up yesterday largely due to health care companies.
Click to expand...
It was just a jab at Kramer.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']There are anti-gun bills in congress, but everything has taken a back seat to ObamaCare. [/QUOTE]

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...ngress&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=&fp=531027be87a71398

Are you referring to HR 45?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h45ih.txt.pdf

Shit. You think that would pass? You think that could be enforced?

Do you think the local John Law is going to knock on everybody's door and toss them in jail for not registering a gun?
 
Putting this here because the Dems becoming painfully obvious slobbering morons before our eyes seems to be happening in hyper speed. From Atrios:
With large majorities in the House and the Senate, and control of the executive branch, we are utterly powerless to do anything.

I'm starting to think these people have no idea what they're doing.
Click to expand...
They can't even get the press release out without a gigantically comical grammar mistake. Can we please get rid of Pelosi and Reid now? Shit, I write better manifestos than that after a six pack.
 
Nancy Pelosi has so far been pretty good at getting results. She managed to pass a public option. It is within her power to pass the Senate bill in the House unchanged, and it goes straight to Obama's desk, no Senate vote needed.

Meanwhile, Obama is calling to wait for Brown to be seated before proceeding. Thats absurd, there is no proceeding that way. Surely he knows that. I want politicians to be lying to me when they say they are trying to be bi-partisan.

Pelosi can still tell Obama to suck a dick and send it to his desk.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Nancy Pelosi has so far been pretty good at getting results. She managed to pass a public option. It is within her power to pass the Senate bill in the House unchanged, and it goes straight to Obama's desk, no Senate vote needed.[/QUOTE]
They don't have the votes in the House to do that or they would have already. Too many Democrats are worried about losing their seats.
 
They didnt have the votes in the Senate if they changed it but they were still trying to change it. One of the two has a higher change of happening even if both cant happen, and I submit to you that its the House that has better odds.
 
I don't normally agree with you but here you are saying something I completely agree with:

[quote name='berzirk']Has anyone thought that rather than a huge vote against Obama, that this is actually a vote against an insane, inept candidate in Coakley? I didn't follow it all that closely, because I really didn't care, but the media snippets I saw showed Coakley as out of touch, out of her league, and a bumbling fool. [/QUOTE]

Let's remember that before the holidays, the numbers were reversed. Coakley was sitting easy at around 50% and Brown was around 40%. After she took her vacation and Brown's numbers caught up, she made a bunch of gaffes, and he performed well in the debates, the numbers switched up.

For people who claim this was a referendum on Obama, how do you explain the flip-flop in the polls? Did people suddenly realize they didn't like Obama as their New year's resolution? Did THAT many people dislike his handling of the underwear bomber? Doubt it, his approval numbers in MA are still pretty high.

Sorry spinsters, just a bad democratic candidate like Creigh Deeds.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't normally agree with you but here you are saying something I completely agree with:



Let's remember that before the holidays, the numbers were reversed. Coakley was sitting easy at around 50% and Brown was around 40%. After she took her vacation and Brown's numbers caught up, she made a bunch of gaffes, and he performed well in the debates, the numbers switched up.

For people who claim this was a referendum on Obama, how do you explain the flip-flop in the polls? Did people suddenly realize they didn't like Obama as their New year's resolution? Did THAT many people dislike his handling of the underwear bomber? Doubt it, his approval numbers in MA are still pretty high.

Sorry spinsters, just a bad democratic candidate like Creigh Deeds.[/QUOTE]

Sure, the fact that, Obama is 0 for 3 in endorsing candidates in contested mid-term elections is a complete coincidence.

I will concede though that the MA senate election is more of a referendum on health care reform rather than Obama himself who does remain personally popular here, though his approval ratings have been steadily going down. Obama is smart enough to see that he needs to go back to the drawing board and really get bipartisan input. He needs to put a leash on Pelosi and Reid who have done much to squander Obama's goodwill with the public.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']They didnt have the votes in the Senate if they changed it but they were still trying to change it. One of the two has a higher change of happening even if both cant happen, and I submit to you that its the House that has better odds.[/QUOTE]
Reports are coming in today that the House Democrats almost to a man will not support the Senate bill.

There are very serious divisions between the House and Senate. For one, there is no public option in the Senate bill at all.

Much is made of the $100 million dollar bribe to Ben Nelson, Coakley even cited it as a major factor in her defeat. But the real thing he won on the Senate bill was to have the provision that kills the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies removed.

Funding for the bill is also completely different. The House wants a 5% tax increase on people making 500k+ a year. The Senate wants a 40% tax on private insurance plans. The Unions made a deal with both houses that would exempt them from the tax for 8 years in exchange for their support, but its not in the current Senate bill.

The Senate bill also includes a deal with the pharmaceutical companies that prevents states from negotiating with them to lower prices on seniors with Medicare. The House wants to use that to close a budget deficit in Medicare part D. There are also other differences including abortion.

I don't think the current Senate bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House as it is. They favor scaling back the entire thing and seeking more Republican support.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Obama is smart enough to see that he needs to go back to the drawing board and really get bipartisan input.[/QUOTE]

Haven't you been called out on this enough times?

Is it just flamebait?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
I don't think the current Senate bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House as it is. They favor scaling back the entire thing and seeking more Republican support.[/QUOTE]
And the chances of receiving even one additional Republican vote under any circumstance is 0%. You cant compromise when the one and only thing they want is no. The thing could be only tax cuts and tort reform and it would have to be unanimously against.

Put the Senate bill to a House vote. If it fails, it fails. We'll at least know who to be mad/happy with.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Haven't you been called out on this enough times?

Is it just flamebait?[/QUOTE]

There have been over 60 Republican health care proposals in the House and Senate. Haven't heard about them? Exactly my point.
 
[quote name='cdietschrun']I'm a MA voter and Brown got my vote...and now I want to get with Ayla![/QUOTE]

Oh shit, his daughter was on American Idol?

That just ain't fair, not even in politics.

your chances of 'getting with ayla' were precisely the same as they were tuesday morning before the polls opened, son.

dopa, humor me and link to one Republican proposal on the Thomas search engine.
 
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/s...n-to-obama-policies-drove-massachusetts-vote/

So yeah, there's that. Short form, for the "too long, didn't read" crowd: 60% of the voters were either for Obama’s policies or indifferent (according to a GOP poll). Of the independents, slightly more than half approve, rather than disapprove of Obama's overall policies.

Obvious conclusion? This was no referendum on Obama or health care. More Republicans voted, period, and/or more people were simply willing to vote for Brown over Coakley (who, frankly, seems like a terrible candidate to me, and I'm several states away) and didn't factor Obama or health care into their decision at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh shit, his daughter was on American Idol?

That just ain't fair, not even in politics.

your chances of 'getting with ayla' were precisely the same as they were tuesday morning before the polls opened, son.

dopa, humor me and link to one Republican proposal on the Thomas search engine.[/QUOTE]

Sure no problem.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:11:./temp/~bdwf3u::|/bss/|

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:3:./temp/~bdHDiE::|/bss/111search.html|

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bd2EWD::|/bss/111search.html|

I'm not saying they are perfect either but Coburn especially has some decent ideas that should be considered.

Honestly, the MA election result could be a blessing in disguise for Obama. His party can't avoid the fact that the American people really do not approve of either the Senate or the House health care reform bills and there will be severe political fallout if they stay the course. Obama has enough time to right the ship and also has justification to reign in Pelosi and Reid and really go for bipartisan reform which I sincerely think he wants. He's smart enough to realize that he'll have to in order to salvage his presidency.

Anyone who thinks that the MA election was not a referendum on health care reform is kidding themselves. Brown openly ran on the platform that he would be the 41st vote against health care reform and did not hide his socially conservative views at all. That clearly was enough for him to dominate the independent vote. Fortunately, Obama is a smart guy and understands this and I hope will proceed accordingly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='trq']http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/s...n-to-obama-policies-drove-massachusetts-vote/

So yeah, there's that. Short form, for the "too long, didn't read" crowd: 60% of the voters were either for Obama’s policies or indifferent (according to a GOP poll). Of the independents, slightly more than half approve, rather than disapprove of Obama's overall policies.

Obvious conclusion? This was no referendum on Obama or health care. More Republicans voted, period, and/or more people were simply willing to vote for Brown over Coakley (who, frankly, seems like a terrible candidate to me, and I'm several states away) and didn't factor Obama or health care into their decision at all.[/QUOTE]

It's convenient that you omitted the fact that 52% were opposed to HCR and 51% opposed him on health care. Independents by a 2-1 margin. 59% like Obama's image, while 55% like his policies. While the poll makes note of the Congressional Republicans, it does not make a note of Congressional Democrats and their approval/disapproval. This was about health care, and what he and Democrats did on Health Care.

Read the poll data next time instead of the blurb.
 
I believe this is coming from a research 2000 poll:
A plurality of people who switched—48—or didn’t vote—43—said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went “too far”—but 36 percent thought it didn’t go far enough and 41 percent said they weren’t sure why they opposed it.
Click to expand...

41 percent said they weren’t sure why they opposed it.
Click to expand...
41 percent said they weren’t sure why they opposed it.
Click to expand...
What in the hell?
 
[quote name='dopa345']Sure no problem.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:11:./temp/~bdwf3u::|/bss/|

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:3:./temp/~bdHDiE::|/bss/111search.html|

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bd2EWD::|/bss/111search.html|

I'm not saying they are perfect either but Coburn especially has some decent ideas that should be considered.[/quote]

Not perfect? Coburn's plan elimiates medicaid and SCHIP. That's far from 'not perfect,' that's positively fucking insane.

Anyone who thinks that the MA election was not a referendum on health care reform is kidding themselves.
Click to expand...

One might say the same about someone who refuses to change their perception of an event in the face of exit polls that say the opposite of what they believe.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Haven't you been called out on this enough times?

Is it just flamebait?[/QUOTE]


Arguing with dopa is like playing whack-a-mole.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Sure no problem.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:11:./temp/~bdwf3u::|/bss/| [/QUOTE]

Temporary file open error. Display failed.

:lol:

[quote name='dopa345']
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:3:./temp/~bdHDiE::|/bss/111search.html|

SEC. 201. STATE-BASED HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES.

Yeah, I heard the market could fix itself.

[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dopa345']
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bd2EWD::|/bss/111search.html|

SEC. 105. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.

Yeah, I heard about this.

[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dopa345'] I'm not saying they are perfect either but Coburn especially has some decent ideas that should be considered. [/QUOTE]

Should preventing a woman's access to abortions really be considered? Isn't abortion just some push button issue used to jerk people around.

How about these state exchanges? So, we create a new market and the state "shall not determine premium or cost sharing amounts for health insurance coverage offered through the State Exchange." However, the state "shall ensure the existence of an effective and efficient method for the collection of premiums for health insurance coverage offered through the State Exchange."

http://the-adventurers-club.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/iron_enforcer.jpg

iron_enforcer.jpg


"You don't like the price of insurance? Too bad. You got to pay it or else."

At least with some random tax, it is just a percentage.

[quote name='dopa345'] Obama has enough time to right the ship and also has justification to reign in Pelosi and Reid and really go for bipartisan reform which I sincerely think he wants. [/QUOTE]

So, your answer is flamebait.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Arguing with dopa is like playing whack-a-mole.[/QUOTE]

I guess so. Everything goes back to bipartisan support.

I guess I'm supposed to believe that the bill has either undergone no changes at all or all changes were made to appease Democrats.

BTW, are you as anxious to see dopa's Part III - The Solution blog as I am?
 
[quote name='evanft']You're shocked that people are stupid and uninformed?[/QUOTE]

People admitting to being stupid and uninformed is new.

Maybe they didn't understand the question?
 
I'm pretty convinced that anybody (and I mean *anybody*) who uses the names of Reid or Pelosi without providing a specific action they've participated in (such as the revelation of Reid's 'colorful' language a few weeks back) is either a fool, a troll, or both.

If you say "we gotta stop Reid and Pelosi!" and offer nothing more than that, I see that you really mean "I have an opinion on something I don't know all that much about!"

Particularly when Sen. Reid didn't do anything to stop the centrist vultures Nelson and Lieberman from leaving a real health care bill for dead and making sure they got to take leftovers home with them. Reid's a fucking pansy, he's not a villain. Democrats should be more irate with him than any Republican. Hell, Republicans should love Reid for being such a goddamned pushover bitch. You should fund his re-election campaign so he can singled handedly subvert Democrat plans from the inside.

"we gotta stop reid and pelosi!" more bumper sticker intellect, and shamefully, from someone who's capable of far more than that.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']BTW, are you as anxious to see dopa's Part III - The Solution blog as I am?[/QUOTE]

Not really, the underpants gnomes stopped being funny a while ago.

Funny how he takes two or three days for the first parts but a month for the last which happens to be the only one that might have any substance/relevance.

I guess so.
Click to expand...

It is the best comparison I got.

for example:

dopa:
There have been over 60 Republican health care proposals in the House and Senate. Haven't heard about them? Exactly my point.
Click to expand...

There was one thing out there resembling a Republican plan, I heard of it of course having mentioned it several times here it was even scored by the CBO.

It cost more and covered less people, even despite its suckitude it was mere window dressing just so cons could pretend they had anything to add to the conversation.

dopa will now proceed to crawl back under his rock until he thinks people forgot his previous perfidy and then post the same goddamn BS all over again.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Sorry spinsters, just a bad democratic candidate like Creigh Deeds.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, you're wrong. Deeds was clearly the best of the three candidates in the Democratic primary. McAuliffe or Moran would have lost by even more to McDonnell. Sure, Deeds didn't run a great campaign, but his politics fit Virginia much better than the other choices the Democrats had. Deeds is such a poor candidate that just a few years ago he lost by only 300 votes to McDonnell for attorney general. Face it, the difference here is national mood, not candidates, for the most part -- even if Coakley said a few stupid things when she became desperate at the end of the race.
 
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that Brown is being painted as the "do nothing" candidate with "no plans" and "no real positions" when the majority of Coakley's campaign consisted of (to steal from Myke) Ugh. Brown bad. Me not Brown. Vote Me. Ugh.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Am I the only one who finds it amusing that Brown is being painted as the "do nothing" candidate with "no plans" and "no real positions" when the majority of Coakley's campaign consisted of (to steal from Myke) Ugh. Brown bad. Me not Brown. Vote Me. Ugh.[/QUOTE]
Coakley was yesterday.

Can you not think outside of a liberal reference?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The average American gets 6.9 a night on weeknights?

Looks I need to change my habits.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Especially with a flexible academic job where you (hopefully) don't have to be in early in the morning etc. (assuming you still have the teaching gig for now)!

I probably average 7-8 hours on weeknights (in bed sometime between midnight and 3am, up sometime between 9-11 unless I have a meeting as I request only afternoon and evening courses).

The flexible schedule and dodging mornings was a huge incentive for the academic job for me and made the lower pay vs. a research firm or government research gig more bearable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']The average American gets 6.9 a night on weeknights?

Looks I need to change my habits.[/QUOTE]

The idea is holding a job where you maintain a sleep deficit for several years may impair your mental capacity permanently.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm pretty convinced that anybody (and I mean *anybody*) who uses the names of Reid or Pelosi without providing a specific action they've participated in (such as the revelation of Reid's 'colorful' language a few weeks back) is either a fool, a troll, or both.

If you say "we gotta stop Reid and Pelosi!" and offer nothing more than that, I see that you really mean "I have an opinion on something I don't know all that much about!"

Particularly when Sen. Reid didn't do anything to stop the centrist vultures Nelson and Lieberman from leaving a real health care bill for dead and making sure they got to take leftovers home with them. Reid's a fucking pansy, he's not a villain. Democrats should be more irate with him than any Republican. Hell, Republicans should love Reid for being such a goddamned pushover bitch. You should fund his re-election campaign so he can singled handedly subvert Democrat plans from the inside.

"we gotta stop reid and pelosi!" more bumper sticker intellect, and shamefully, from someone who's capable of far more than that.[/QUOTE]

I also think anyone that resorts to insults rather than rational arguments is a fool as well. I may disagree with what you have to say but I'll never insult anyone for simply disagreeing with me.

You asked for evidence that the Republicans have tried to enter the discussion and I did. I never said I agreed with their proposals (I think their laser focus on abortion is misplaced and counterproductive). However some, like Coburn who is a physician and understands the challenges of health care better than most and should have a voice in the discussion. Tort reform is a necessary component of any health care reform. Every other government run health care program has caps on malpractice so why shouldn't we? Medicaid and Medicare are poorly run, unsustainable programs in the long-term. It does not bode well for what will happen if the government takes over health care for everyone.

If you honestly think that Pelosi and Reid have been models of bipartisan cooperation, well, let's just say you're in the minority of public opinion about that. How about providing some evidence that they've extended any attempts to work with Republicans on the issues aside from them simply saying so?

I voted for Obama since I bought into his promise for bipartisanship and transparency. However his Democratic cohorts in the House and Senate are letting him down big time by trying to force their own agenda with backroom deals. We all want health care reform in the end but the Democratic plan will make things worse and it seems that even their Democratic base is realizing this as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top