Who will win the senatorial election in Massachusetts ?

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Nice. The voters in Mass are delusional?

Yup

Nope, however they have a point of view that you don't get, they care about stuff differently than you think that they should. Obviously you don't understand what is going on, you would make better use of your time educating yourself than you do by casting aspersions on other people.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo -

It appears that you are trying very hard to put a good face on a very bad situation for your party, and are, so far, doing so with very little success or good effect.

While you (and other progressives) may have your eyes fixed on what you didn't like about the eight years before Obama took office, the rest of the country has become very disenchanted with what has gone on politically during the last year. The attempts by the president, and by other Democrat apologists, including yourself to deflect attention from the depressing confusion of the past year by references to the"bad old days" have worn very thin. Worse they reflect a childish and somewhat unmanly unwillingness to face facts and accept responsibility for one's own actions.

This could have been a wonderful opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to deal with their growing political setbacks on Cap & Trade, Health Care & in Foreign Policy and make a wise course correction that might enable their political recovery. Instead the President appears to be doubling down on his earlier bets and attempting to distract the public through populist rhetoric, demonizing independent bankers whom he doesn't like (as opposed to the plantation bankers in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who take his orders and serve his constituents). He is apparently being urged on by doctrinaire "Progressives" who live in the fantasy that they can pass health care through the reconciliation process (they can't) and that by merely becoming even more strident and uncompromising, they can get what they want (they can't).

It is all OK with me.

I think you are a bit delusional when you state that it was a lack "of balls" that kept some people away from the increasingly tedious crowing of folks like yourself on these political issues. I suspect it was mostly the spectre of the tedious repition of the party line and shallow, triumphalist rhetoric coming from folks like yourself that put them off. Perhaps they came back in the hopes that recent events may have shaken the **** out of your ears.

Evidently that didn't work either. However, that too is OK with me.

1 Reply

so who did win

brown, the people, conservatism, the tea baggers, liberals (i mean now they know they have to actually do something)

who?

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Quote:

so who did win

nobody, because nothing has been solved. This was a vote of no confidence in Washington, nothing more, nothing less.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

A vote of no confidence in Washington???

Neither of these candidates was a "Washington insider" so who were the voters voting against exactly?

The late Teddy Kennedy who held the seat for the past 40+ years maybe? Of course he was dead but....

Or, maybe it was as Howard Dean put it...the voters wanted healthcare reform sooo badly that they voted in a guy who PROMISED to vote against it! IDIOT!!!+

ROFLMAO!!!!

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I suspect it was mostly the spectre of the tedious repition of the party line and shallow, triumphalist rhetoric coming from folks like yourself that put them off. Perhaps they came back in the hopes that recent events may have shaken the **** out of your ears.

Evidently that didn't work either. However, that too is OK with me.

Well, yaknow; I managed to wade through it for years when it was coming from you and yours, George. It ought to feel familiar. I'm sure you remember the 2001-2004 period of political discussion pretty well and it certainly didn't cover anyone with glory, now did it?

The problem with Obama and the Dems this cycle isn't that they have bad ideas, it's that they have been ineffective and the public hates weak leaders.

The solution isn't to turn towards Republican positions, but I do love how you always suggest that. About twice a day. And when did any Republican President or Congress ever do this?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem with Obama and the Dems this cycle isn't that they have bad ideas, it's that they have been ineffective and the public hates weak leaders.

Well the Administration & the Democrat Congress have certainly failed to enact two of the key planks in their political platform - Cap & Trade legislation and A Universal Health Care system. However, I don't see that lack of committment or weakness was behind either.

I believe Cap & Trade is dead because the public simply doesn't believe the dangers of Global Warming merit the huge dislocation of our economy that the zealots & true believers call for.

I am aware that many Democrats appear to assert that some version of the Health Care Legislation would have passed if only the Democrats had been tougher and/or less accomodating to the Republicans. However, I believe this view doesn't square with the facts - the House Bill was passed by a large Democrat majority without ANY consultation with or support from Republicans. The public reaction to the debate and to the House bill, as perceived by Democrats in both the House and the Senate, caused them to retrench, particularly with respect to the total forecast cost which grossly exceeded the President's campaign rhetoric. Of course you may assert that had they stayed the course and stuck with the House Bill, they would have prevailed. The point is arguable, but I believe the weight of the evidence says that even Denocrat Senators would have ended up voting against it.

It's hard to fault either Speaker Pelosi or Majority leader Reid for not trying very hard on these issues. However both find themselves sitting very low in public esteem. Reid runs a fair chance of losing his coming election (if, indeed he runs at all), and Pelosi, in my opinion, is likely to lose her Majority Leader post in the next Congress.

One can write all this off to poor technique, however, it is hard to exclude the conclusion that the public simply wasn't buying their policy proposals.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The solution isn't to turn towards Republican positions, but I do love how you always suggest that. About twice a day. And when did any Republican President or Congress ever do this?

Many political leaders, left and right, have done that. Indeed struggles with the excesses of their own parties have key parts of the histories of all our presidents who presided over crucial times and events. President Obama faces some key choices right now. So far the indications of what he might do are highly ambiguous. That too could be fatal.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Cap & Trade legislation and A Universal Health Care system. However, I don't see that lack of committment or weakness was behind either.

Of course it was. We certainly had the votes in the Senate. But what happened was that a small group of Dem senators - who just so happened to be highly donated to by the Health Insurance industry - decided to tie the process up in the Senate Finance committee for months. Nothing productive came out of those negotiations; the Republicans on the panel admitted that they had been instructed by their leadership to do nothing but delay and deny, agree to nothing. And the Dems let them do it.

The health-care conversation dragged on for months, but the individual elements of the plan still retain high public support. This is a pretty good indicator that the public wants reform but is unsatisfied with the job the Dems are doing on it; not that abandoning reform is the way to go, as you suggest.

Quote:

It's hard to fault either Speaker Pelosi or Majority leader Reid for not trying very hard on these issues. However both find themselves sitting very low in public esteem. Reid runs a fair chance of losing his coming election (if, indeed he runs at all), and Pelosi, in my opinion, is likely to lose her Majority Leader post in the next Congress.

Reid for sure. I'm not even sure he'll run for re-election at this point, his numbers are terrible. He acquiesced to the idea of the 'silent filibuster,' when he really ought to have forced the Republicans to show their hand; by letting the bar effectively change to 60 votes to pass anything, he has granted the Republican minority tremendous power over the last three years. It is inexcusable.

Pelosi on the other hand has been remarkably effective in the House. What bill have they failed to pass? She has done a better job with her end of the game than either Reid or Obama has.

Quote:

One can write all this off to poor technique, however, it is hard to exclude the conclusion that the public simply wasn't buying their policy proposals.

Projection on your part. When it comes to health care, for example, the public (I don't mean screaming Republicans, they were always going to be against anything that the 'socialist' Obama did) didn't start turning against it until the Dems in the Senate committee started watering down the bill to please Republicans on the committee... and for what?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

.When it comes to health care, for example, the public (I don't mean screaming Republicans, they were always going to be against anything that the 'socialist' Obama did) didn't start turning against it until the Dems in the Senate committee started watering down the bill to please Republicans on the committee... and for what ?

I believe if you will take the trouble to reread the then contemporary record you will find they were reacting to concerns about the excessive cost of the House bill; growing concerns among the public and many economists about projected large rises in the deficit; and a general unwillingness of a large segment of the public to believe the government could actually achieve the "cost savings" it was bragging about without worrisome intrusions into our individual choices.

Neither of us knows the degrees to which the Democrat senators in question were motivated by concerns about the merits of the legislation; personal concerns about their reelection; or even the external influence of political contributors.

However, we all did get the chance to see the power of organized labor unions and certain unscrupulous senators in getting all of them - the president included - to bend on their supposed principles to make obviously unfair deals in direct conflict with both their own stated principles and the public interest, just to pick up a few more votes.

What more could they have done?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

.When it comes to health care, for example, the public (I don't mean screaming Republicans, they were always going to be against anything that the 'socialist' Obama did) didn't start turning against it until the Dems in the Senate committee started watering down the bill to please Republicans on the committee... and for what ?

I believe if you will take the trouble to reread the then contemporary record you will find they were reacting to concerns about the excessive cost of the House bill; growing concerns among the public and many economists about projected large rises in the deficit; and a general unwillingness of a large segment of the public to believe the government could actually achieve the "cost savings" it was bragging about without worrisome intrusions into our individual choices.

Where are you getting this data from, exactly? I'm interested to know. Polling data doesn't seem to support what you are claiming.

Quote:

Neither of us knows the degrees to which the Democrat senators in question were motivated by concerns about the merits of the legislation; personal concerns about their reelection; or even the external influence of political contributors.

However, we all did get the chance to see the power of organized labor unions and certain unscrupulous senators in getting all of them - the president included - to bend on their supposed principles to make obviously unfair deals in direct conflict with both their own stated principles and the public interest, just to pick up a few more votes.

What more could they have done?

The Labor unions had a good point about the so-called 'cadillac insurance tax plan the Senate put through; it seemed specifically designed to screw their constituents over. The Nebraska deal was a travesty, Nelson is a fool (and one of those responsible for the demise of health care reform in general; unsurprising as he is the largest taker of health-insurer donations in the Senate).

Your account really doesn't contradict mine: it wasn't the basic ideas that the public didn't like, it was the inability of the Dems to get the job done - and the resort to deal-making instead of holding the line and forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your account really doesn't contradict mine: it wasn't the basic ideas that the public didn't like, it was the inability of the Dems to get the job done - and the resort to deal-making instead of holding the line and forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster.

Those may be your opinions, but since you don't speak for "the public" you don't really know if they're true.

With respect to the filibuster point, you are simply wrong. Senate rules no longer require filibusters - 60 votes are, by rule, required to end debate - filibuster or no filibuster. Moreover the Democrats simply don'y have the votes or the political power to change the rules. No matter how much you and the likes of Oberman and Maddow fume and stomp your feet over this fact, it remains true.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your account really doesn't contradict mine: it wasn't the basic ideas that the public didn't like, it was the inability of the Dems to get the job done - and the resort to deal-making instead of holding the line and forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster.

Those may be your opinions, but since you don't speak for "the public" you don't really know if they're true.

Well, that's odd - just a minute ago you were telling me that the public was against the Dems' health care plans, in spite of polling which shows that practically every reform in it is supported by majorities. Do you, in fact, speak for 'the public?'

I wouldn't mind so much you castigating me for such things if you had not taken the exact same liberty in your last post.

Quote:

With respect to the filibuster point, you are simply wrong. Senate rules no longer require filibusters - 60 votes are, by rule, required to end debate - filibuster or no filibuster. Moreover the Democrats simply don'y have the votes or the political power to change the rules. No matter how much you and the likes of Oberman and Maddow fume and stomp your feet over this fact, it remains true.

You are speaking of informal decisions by the leadership, not 'Senate rules.' 60 votes are not required to end debate. You are completely incorrect. No rule was changed to bring about the situation we currently have; or perhaps you can point out to when the rules were changed?

Now, about the lack of Dem ability to change the actual rules? That I agree with!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Labor unions had a good point about the so-called 'cadillac insurance tax plan the Senate put through; it seemed specifically designed to screw their constituents over.

I'll agree that the unions reacted as though the tax was "directed" at them. However, the facts suggest it was yet another part of the social engineering behind the cost & revenue parts of the legislation. Clearly this tax was an important component of the new taxes expressly designed to preserve the much touted "deficit neutrality" of the legislation. However, this time they stumbled on some Democrat "fat cats" among the Republican ones they are generally so eager to tax. (The fact is Union officials have pension and health care plans that are unequalled in any corporation, and generally far better than those enjoyed by their dues paying members).

More than anything this episode exposed the venality, hypocrisy and corruption implicit in the ruling Chicago branch of the Democrat party.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Labor unions had a good point about the so-called 'cadillac insurance tax plan the Senate put through; it seemed specifically designed to screw their constituents over.

I'll agree that the unions reacted as though the tax was "directed" at them. However, the facts suggest it was yet another part of the social engineering behind the cost & revenue parts of the legislation. Clearly this tax was an important component of the new taxes expressly designed to preserve the much touted "deficit neutrality" of the legislation. However, this time they stumbled on some Democrat "fat cats" among the Republican ones they are generally so eager to tax. (The fact is Union officials have pension and health care plans that are unequalled in any corporation, and generally far better than those enjoyed by their dues paying members).

More than anything this episode exposed the venality, hypocrisy and corruption implicit in the ruling Chicago branch of the Democrat party.

yes, it represented a litmus test on the soul of the Dem party.

But when the Republican party actively works to defend the rich, the 'investor' classes, from higher taxes or penalties; that's not venal or corrupt at all? I have a hard time believing that you could so damn one party for listening to their supporters without doing the same for the other party.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Obviously, Brown won.

It is just as obvious that his victory was a reputation of Obama policies, even though Liberals will deny, twist, and fugue in response.

Not likely that anyone can disabuse the willingly delusional who, with desperation, argue that the Brown victory is the same political trend as that which elected Obama.

It's not Obama and his policies the Mass voters rejected, and it wasn't an expression of disillusion with the much vaunted Kennedy Legacy.

Oh no.

It was anger with Republicans that resulted in Brown heading to DC.

The voters aren't fed up with Obama and his policies. They still love our post-racial president regardless of his policies, and little do the knuckle draggers know, but his policies are in their best interest.

For some reason the Greatest Orator in American history was not able to convince the American people that Obamacare was really something they will, in time, love.

To be fair though his task was to convince a proletariat that has trouble tying their shoes, and who are a blank slate for the insidious transcriptions of FOX News. That's a tall order even for The Expected One.

So there is only one course to follow: Shove the beneficial Castor Oil of Obamacare down the throats of the American morons and wait for the dolts to finally realize the medicine was good for him.

Still, it's great fun to see Obamamaniacs spin an utter political defeat into a positive for their Mahdi.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Why so bitter, Finn?

I was on the losing side of this election-- I am OK with it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, to summarize, I suspect that voters are finally starting to understand why folks like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and other like minded associates of Obama actually do matter, that they matter alot, they mean something, something big, and maybe more and more people are beginning to have the light come on in their head.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Why so bitter, Finn?

I was on the losing side of this election-- I am OK with it.

You mistake gleeful scorn for bitterness.

I'm not surpised you're OK with it, you're a self=professed liberal and the liberal spin is that the election was a repudiation of the GOP and a call for a renewed push for Obamacare.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Finn, to summarize, I suspect that voters are finally starting to understand why folks like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and other like minded associates of Obama actually do matter, that they matter alot, they mean something, something big, and maybe more and more people are beginning to have the light come on in their head.

This is what happens when people have ridiculously high expectations about a political leader. The fellow cannot possibly make good on all of his grand promises and so has nowhere to go but down. It doesn't help that Obama is an incompetent and mendacious egotist to boot.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

This is what happens when people have ridiculously high expectations about a political leader. The fellow cannot possibly make good on all of his grand promises and so has nowhere to go but down. It doesn't help that Obama is an incompetent and mendacious egotist to boot.

I know of a kid in college that got caught up into the Obama craze, and ended up joining the campaign and working tirelessly on it. It almost became a sort of religious mission, with the fervor involved with some of these clueless and relatively uneducated young people. Their understanding of basic civics and what the basic foundation of the country involved, it was actually a bit scary to witness how so totally clueless they were, but how much they believed in what they were doing. It seemed it was all built upon some magically crafted image that was built by the media, of a man wearing cool looking sunglasses, a guy that was so intelligent, that talked so soothingly and all knowing, that had the whole world figured out, that all the world loved. It really was an image of almost a messiah, and on top of that - it seemed that somehow because he was a black man, that finally their conscience could be cleansed. Cleansed from what I don't know, but I suspicion it was a result of being fed the political correctness and collective guilt from K through 12, and the same thing in college.

It wasn't just the guilt of racism, but this would be a guy that would no longer abuse the earth, so they could also be free of that guilt, of destroying the earth. After all, every year, their teachers would have fed them the crap about earth day, the rain forests, evil corporations, etc. And besides that, most young people have not only endured the indoctrination of schools, but have also grown up watching cartoons that depict corporations as evil, and so on and so forth.

So Finn, when you really consider the educational system and the culture of this generation, it is no surprise at all that the culture was ripe for a pop culture politician like Obama to be able to win the last election.

0 Replies

Who will win the senatorial election in Massachusetts ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know