Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Poll: Massachusetts does not think Scott Brown should obstruct health-care reform


Frustrated by the lack of good data on why Massachusetts voters made the decisions they did, The Washington Post partnered with the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University to dig into the motivations of Brown voters, Coakley voters and -- importantly -- non-voters. The results (pdf) make it untenable to argue that the election had nothing to do with national issues in general or health-care reform in particular. But it makes it similarly hard to argue that the state is firmly opposed to health-care reform, or that Scott Brown's election is mandate against the bill.

As you can see in the graph atop this post, a majority of people who voted for Martha Coakley and a plurality of non-voters support the bill. Brown voters, however, are brutally opposed. Elsewhere in the poll, a majority of Coakley voters, non-voters and Brown voters say they approve of the Massachusetts health-care reforms, which are very similar to the national plan.

Potentially more important, Coakley voters and non-voters overwhelmingly prefer that Brown work with Democrats on the health-care reform bill rather than partner with Republicans to sink the effort altogether. And more crucially, 48 percent of Brown's voters think the same thing. Which suggests that though Brown's election was far from an affirmation of President Obama's agenda, nor was it a call for relentless obstruction. We'll see if Brown, who'll have to run for reelection in 2012, heeds that.


By Ezra Klein  |  January 22, 2010; 5:06 PM ET
Categories:  Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Reconcile this!
Next: Tab dump


Have any of the Democrats in congress seen these polls?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 22, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one who isn't surprised? People who are against this bill have gotten their information from Fox and Limbaugh, and don't really know what's in it. Or else they are angry that it's not a single-payer. Once people understand it, most everyone will accept it, except for some left progressives and some right teapartiers. And that is a minority. Pass the bill, and emotions will predictably subside in less than three months.

So, the House should pass the Senate bill immediately, and then the Democrats should enact a major information campaign for the next half-year: to explain what it does, apportion blame for its inadequacies, explain why and how they had to give into interest groups -- and be completely honest about it, the President promised honesty after all -- and show what is necessary to make it better. Call out the interest groups! And compare it to the Massachusetts health plan, every step of the way! And ask Scott Brown why he voted FOR that one.

This Mass. election is NOT the political earthquake that some people are making it out to be. A lot of factors tied into it. It even looks like some voters who went for Brown are angry at the Dems that the reform is not stronger! When there are discontents on both the left and the right, that is a very good thing to use.

The Congressional Republican plan is to promise a compromise, and then renege -- the same old bait and switch that's gone on for a year, pushing it out to the next election so there will be less time to correct their lies. Or else hope the Dems turn tail right now, and run.

The Republicans don't want the Dems to get political credit for healthcare reform. That is a huge obstacle to their future success.

The Repubs said months ago their intent was to push its passage into this year, as late as possible. Why? Because there will be less time for the electorate to find out what is really in it, before the next election. Much better chance to capitalize on angry voters who swallow quick lies from TV and radio.

They need to use lies to defeat the bill. If it gets passed, the Republicans are in BIG trouble. Once the truth about it comes out, most people will be far less opposed to it. Half of the bill is composed of Republican ideas, for heaven's sake. Emotions will subside completely within a few months. And the Democrats will get the credit.

The important point is to show strong leadership and pass the Senate bill! That's how you stop demoralization. Be leaders!

Posted by: Lee_A_Arnold | January 22, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm. It's not particularly intellectually honest to graphically illustrate responses concerning health care reform in general and use them to draw unfounded conclusions about the voters' attitudes towards the House and Senate Bills. If you look at the poll, you will see that the responses concerning the specific bills were very different from the responses concerning the bills. Brown didn't run against health care reform. He ran against those bills.

Posted by: bgmma50 | January 22, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me. I meant to say that the responses concerning the specific bills were very different from the responses concerning healh care reform in general.

Posted by: bgmma50 | January 22, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

bgmma50, you have the progressives who want a single-payer and you have the teapartiers who want the freedom agenda to shoot themselves in the foot. In the middle you have everybody else: the moderates, all of whom would support the bills, more or less, except that the Republicans don't want the Democrats to get the political success. What else is there about healthcare reform, and who else remains to be characterized?

Posted by: Lee_A_Arnold | January 22, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand this post. If you're saying that the Democrats are misreading the Massachusetts results, and those voters (or citizens) are actually in favor of HCR, that's one thing. If you're saying that Scott Brown may be open to working with the Democrats on an HCR compromise, that's ridiculous. First, he's not going to do that. Secondly, he's one of 41 Republican Senators. Who gives a damn about him? There's absolutely nothing special about Scott Brown.

Posted by: robbins2 | January 22, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Who the hell cares what non-voters think? They're non-voters. They've opted out of the process, and have chosen to make their opinion about political matters irrelevant. They're too feckless and lazy to bother going into a booth and making a decision about the direction of government. You might as well poll children. Wait - Scratch that. Many children will someday open a newspaper from time to time, get up off their asses and vote.

Polling non-voters is like asking vegetarians which meat they prefer. It's like asking a nun what her favorite sexual position is. It's like asking a tourist for directions.

Can you tell that I really don't like non-voters? As a Democrat, I especially dislike MA non-voters this week. I'm pretty sure that includes my brother and sister-in-law, though they haven't admitted it yet.

Posted by: dug4000 | January 22, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

"Who the hell cares what non-voters think?"

hehe. When the actual voters are blowing your agenda to smithereens you gotta take your comforts where you can.

Lee_A_Arnold, pretty much everybody hates those bills. When "Pass It Now And Fix It Later" is your mantra, you're screwed.

Posted by: bgmma50 | January 22, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

"you have the progressives who want a single-payer and you have the teapartiers who want the freedom agenda to shoot themselves in the foot. In the middle you have everybody else: the moderates, all of whom would support the bills, more or less..." - Lee_A_Arnold

I guess I'm in the "less" category. Health care reform was my number one issue in the election and I support Universal Health Care. I believe that the only changes that make sense are those that put us on a path to achieving what citizens in every other indusustrialized country enjoy: the ability for every citizen to obtain needed treatment without fear of bankrupting themselves, their employers, or their country. Since the current bills are antithetical to that objective, they will get no support from me.

Liberal/leftist/progressive/[name your label], politicians and columnists have been so focused on finding public money to insure the uninsured that they have abandoned any pretext of actual health reform or universality.

I find it interesting that these folks are frustrated that so many voters recognize what has happened to their ideals and are ready to pack it in. People who have been thinking about this understand that:

1. Health insurance is not the same as coverage and coverage is not the same care. There is little in these bills that would actually ensure that everyone would get care or protect individuals from incurring medical debt.

2. A complicated patchwork of different programs with a requirement that anyone who can't find someone to provide tax-free insurance must pay for it himself with after-tax dollars is not "universal". Universal means that everyone has the basic level of security when it comes to medical problems.

3. Improving the physical and financial security of the public at large is not a matter of spending more public money; it's an issue of crafting a sustainable public health care policy.

The most successful universal health care systems are far less dependent on public funds than we are in the US. Yet liberals have constantly presented single-payer wich would incur even more public spending, as the only viable option to our dysfunctional model. It's not surprising that the public, most of whom recognize that we cannot go on in this way, would not be happy with either the choice or the faux solution concocted by Congress.

There is no reform in these bills: it is all about buying more of the same dysfunctional model and that is exactly what we do not need.

Posted by: Athena_news | January 23, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Just curious on the logic here ....

Obama won the election, therefore majority rules and everybody should fall in line with his agenda. Never mind the 47% or so of the people who didn't vote his way.

Now Brown wins the election and he should pay attention to the views of all the people who didn't vote for him or didn't vote at all?

Thinking about healthcare .... We need health reform -- but the issue is not that we're not covering enough people. The issue is that the healthcare system we have today is unsustainable based on the ever increasing costs to support it. Unfortunately, neither the house bill or the senate bill will resolve the real issue.

Perhaps the change in the Senate will allow President Obama to do something he's failed to do so far on this issue ... lead.

Posted by: m-dos | January 23, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"Obama won the election, therefore majority rules and everybody should fall in line with his agenda. Never mind the 47% or so of the people who didn't vote his way."

And that doesn't include the views of the "non-voters" remember only 130 million people voted in the 2008 elections and only about 70 million went for Obama. Since there are about 230 million in the voting age that means that only about 30% of eligible voters went for Obama.

Playing off of the post's headline:

"Poll: Massachusetts does not think Scott Brown should obstruct health-care reform"

You could say this:

"Poll: USA does not think Barack Obama should push his campaign promises including health-care reform"

Posted by: manapp99 | January 23, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Of course not.

Brown is running for president in 2012.

Posted by: pj_camp | January 23, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

More liberal, positive spin from the pro-Democrat Washington Post. Give it up bozos. The candidate picked by the Obama machine lost in a spectacular fashion. Brown specifically said he would torpedo ObamaCare if elected.

If so many wanted to preserve the bloated, medical monstrosity cooked up by the Pelosi gang, why didn't they mob the polls to stop Scott Brown from being elected???

They just didn't care. That's why.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 23, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I lived in Massachusetts for 30 years, until last March. The election was not about health care reform, or Obama; it was about Martha Coakley. She took a month-long vacation as soon as she won the primary, ran a very lazy campaign, and assumed she would win because she is a Democrat. She even scoffed at "standing in front of Fenway Park in the freezing cold, shaking hands."

Martha Coakley is a terrible Attorney General, who puts business ahead of consumers whenever she can. She refused to enforce item pricing laws and ticket scalping laws. She allowed a furniture chain to run an illegal lottery because "no one is complaining." She just revise the law about sales, so a "sale" price can be an item's price 67% of the year.

Posted by: LizBetty | January 23, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Gee lets see, Scott Brown openly ran as the 41st vote to block these bills. Scott Brown wins. Now I am suppose to believe a poll taken by a left wing newspaper telling me what the people of Massachusetts want? Get real!!!

Posted by: keithbo61 | January 23, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Non-voters don't count. If you want your opinion acted on - VOTE - otherwise you have no right to complain. And I want HCR enacted, but c'mon Ezra, this is a beat up.

Posted by: ChicagoIndependant | January 23, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

What a dishonest question, and poll, and article. I'm sure you already know this, but I just wanted to point it out for the unsuspecting trusters. Your entire article is based on a scientifically flawed question and analysis.

Wow, you must be so smart! I hope when I grow up I can be a party patsy just like you. Surely this organization will soon be going the way of its own comrades---hello drain! Didn't you know, more people polled than not prefer drains to popularity?

We asked them if they wanted to die of popularity, and they said no! Clearly we need more drains to serve the people of this country.

Posted by: NotaPopulist | January 24, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Massachusetts already has universal health care. It has been put in place by Republican Gov Mitt Romney, supported by Scott Brown as a state senator.

Scott Brown is simply playing politics when he's against universal health care at the Federal level.

Posted by: iubica2 | January 24, 2010 1:48 AM | Report abuse

Here is a better opening for this propaganda:

"Frustrated at seeing the liberal agenda derailed by voters in Massachusetts, The Washington Post, Harvard University, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and Micheal Moore made up their own reasons for the motivations of Brown voters..."

Posted by: johnhiggins1990 | January 24, 2010 3:02 AM | Report abuse

Klein's article reads like Coakley won.

She lost and the majority of Ma voters are very happy with the coverage that they get via the State.

I just read an article with the headline, "WH Defiant and will push ahead the liberal plans".

It should have read, 'WH studip and will push ...."

Posted by: redmike | January 24, 2010 6:10 AM | Report abuse

No, Ezra.

Massachusetts voters already HAVE universal healthcare.

What they didn't want, was to pay for Nebraska to get off scot free in paying for their own additional Medicaid costs, just so the fragile little president could have "win" on his resume.

If you think Americans don't get that, then you're drowning in your own gobbledygook.

Posted by: auntmo9990 | January 24, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

With due respect, you, many writers to this column and many Democrats are delusional.

Posted by: jlbeckner | January 24, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Just want to go on the record as one voter who is for healthcare reform, but against the current bill(s). So odd that the pollsters didn't try to find out if there were any Massachusetts voters thinking the same way. Auntmo9990 is correct - you're drowning in your own gobbledygook.

Posted by: west22 | January 24, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going to say this was a biased poll, but I found it interesting that one question was "How do you feel personally about the policies offered by the Republicans in Congress?" which received a 58% unsatisfactory rating, but there was no such question asked of democrats in congress. I'm sure it will be spun to show that Obama/Democrat ratings were at 52% approval and Republicans were at 58% disapproval, but there was no question about the democrats. Seems like a glaring omission from what appears to be a comprehensive poll. Why wasn't it asked?

Posted by: casummers1 | January 24, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Who does Mr. Klein think is stupid enough to fall for the long-exposed fallacy that support for health care reform equals support for the current bills in Congress? Or that Republicans are uniformly opposed to any health care reform, as opposed to the current bills. Or that when Mr. Brown said he would vote against the current bills, he shouldn't keep his problems because intellectually immature out-of-town blog writers can manipulate polling data for the numerically illiterate?

Posted by: Posteroid | January 24, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

The Massachusetts vote shows more concern with overall government attitude to deficits than with healthcare reform. Only 36% of voters want to kill healthcare -- a chunk a little larger than the hardcore right, and all the rest of the voters incuding Cloakley's want healthcare reform, they just don't like the sausage-making, while all their information about the bills has been mislearned from Fox, Rush and the other gasbaggers.

Look at the littler items in the poll: Only 8% of Brown voters completely oppose the U.S. reform bills. 13% of Brown voters don't like the dealmaking and the politics of how it is being handled. 7% of Brown voters said it's too complicated--they don't understand it--and there needs to be better information. Only 7% of Brown voters say it's not what the people want. (Washington Post Kaiser Harvard poll)

Commenters assuring us of a massive change in attitudes are spinning it.

So pass the healthcare reform now -- because after three months, the emotions will be entirely dissipated.

This comports scientifically with my Three-Month Rule, which is that, while our emotions are so consuming as to be eternal while we are having them, they subside in the middle-term, and in three months you can get the American electorate to believe the exact opposite of what they believed before. I developed this rule after years of empirical study. Yep, there it is. We're all idiots.

The fact is, what the Democrats have to do is NOT DRAG IT OUT with reconciliations. This will exacerbate the sausage-making meme. But small-town op-edders are already salivating around the country to have the finished bill in front of them, so they can look at the trade-offs and decide for themselves, and they can intelligently discuss it, and they can beat these baggers back to weak tea.

People will find out it's a healthcare reform that is full of BIPARTISAN ideas, pretty much what the Republicans might pass in another era, (though considering their actions on Medicare part D they wouldn't pay for it) -- and the main reason they are against this healthcare reform it is to deny the Democrats the political success that will come of it.

In fact if healthcare reform were going to destroy the Democrats, the Republicans would WELCOME its passage! We know from the John Roberts court that they are not adverse to overturning things.

I'm sorry all the progressives here don't like the bill, but there will probably be another Avatar movie someday, where the blue aliens are invaded by green tendrils, and they all climb back up the floating-rock-ladders to the pterodactyl rookery where a suicidal hero-misfit screams "You dastardly Conservatives" before diving-off butt-naked into the big magnetic field -- after removing his shoes and all the contents of his pockets, of course...

Posted by: Lee_A_Arnold | January 24, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm not the first commenter here to point out that lots of people who want some kind of health care reform were not particularly thrilled with the giant, Christmas tree-shaped dog turd with which those 535 exemplary human beings in the US Congress tried to saddle us. Your post is disingenuous at best.

As a huge fan of divided government, I can think of no better way of improving the GOP's odds of taking one or both chambers than attempting to ram this bill down the American public's throats. However, given horrible consequences of this thing making it into law, I guess I'll have to hope that a modicum of sanity breaks out in the Democratic congressional leadership, and that the Republicans aren't stupid enough to believe that they'll curry much favor by scuttling the few common-sense reforms that most people want. I guess I'm just a cockeyed optimist at heart, all puppydogs and moonbeams...

Posted by: theradicalmoderate | January 24, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest that you look at the poll that mattered - the election results. Scott Brown ran as the 41st vote. That said, if Dems are stupid enough to continue down the road of somehow trying to pass a bill that a majority of people don't like, they will get what they deserve. Icebergs abound! Full speed ahead!

Posted by: amaranthpa | January 24, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I have an idea. Let's just dispense with elections and replace them with phone polls.

The Brown election may be the only time in history where desperate liberals have actually claimed that voting for the guy is actually a rejection of the platform on which he ran. It is absolutely insane.

Posted by: Bob65 | January 24, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

And frankly, what non-voters think is irrelevant. If you are not willing to participate in the process, your opinion as to what should happens doesn't matter one iota.

But perhaps the most absurd part of this whole "hey, let's ignore the election and look at a poll" nonsense is the simple fact that the people pointing at these polls as some sort of evidence that the election is not a rebuke of the Obamacare bill ARE FAILING TO MENTION EVERY OTHER POLL SHOWING MAJORITY OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.

Posted by: Bob65 | January 24, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Ezra: You have really lost it! Commenting on what "non-voters" want is asinine! If you want to hear the majority opinion, visit with Bob Johnson at

Posted by: my4653 | January 24, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

"In the middle you have everybody else: the moderates, all of whom would support the bills, more or less, except that the Republicans don't want the Democrats to get the political success."

In which universe do you live that "all" the moderates want the Obamacare bills? Cite even one poll backing you up. YOu can't do it.

Posted by: Bob65 | January 24, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

You wanna know how I know the above blog post is ridiculously stupid? The following statement:
"Which suggests that though Brown's election was far from an affirmation of President Obama's agenda..."

Really? Far from an affirmation. So it might be somewhat of an affirmation?

Honestly, how desperate do you have to be to try and explain away an election when you are actually trying to put forth the notion that the election OF A MEMBER OF THE OPPOSING PARTY WHO OPPOSED OBAMA'S LEGISLATIVE CENTERPIECE may actually be an affirmation of sorts of Obama's agenda, just not a full-throated one? The statement I quote above is the most asinine example of spin I have yet seen on this topic, and man is that really, really saying something.

Posted by: Bob65 | January 24, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

And of course what would a post on health care be without some jerk, this time Lee Arnold, claiming that opposition to health care really comes down to a bunch of idiots too stupid to really understand what this bill does for them, or they have been brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh, who evidently has 100 million listeners. Here is a newsflash: There has already been a "blitz" of information on this bill. THere have literally been thousands of articles written about this bill and its potential benefits and pitfalls. And guess what? People have decided they don't want it.

And as I mentioned earlier, it is hilarious that this site does with the Mass. election polls what liberal sites always do with polls concerning Obama's approval: they skip the ones that show info they don't like and they hype the ones that do. There were several other polls to come out on this very topic and every other one, but this one, show that the people of Massachusetts oppose the Obamacare bill and that the majority of Brown voters want it stopped, WHICH IS WHAT HE RAN ON DURING THE CAMPAIGN. It is quite simply surreal to read an article detailing how a phone poll taken after the election, that even includes non-voters, should be given more credence than the actual fu%#@ing election.

Posted by: Bob65 | January 24, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Somehow calling people names doesn't amount to evidence. Cite any reliable part of the "blitz" of information among the Mass. voters demonstrating that they actually know what is in the healthcare reform bills. LInk to any opinion poll and prove that the people against it are in the majority.

There is a lot of counter-indication in this poll. 68% of the voters support the Massachusetts healthcare reform (question #26.) Total percentage of voters who think they would be worse off with Obamacare stays under 40% (#19.) Only 28% of total voters think Brown should work to stop the Democratic agenda (#12.) Only 23% of total voters were expressing opposition to Obama (#9.) 18% of the total voters expressed outright support for the reform bill, 15% outright against it, 19% don't like the political process (#6.) And so on and on, with lots of other numbers indicating that the preference against healthcare reform is actually in the minority.

When you divide that minority into progressives who want single-payer and teapartyers who want nothing, (because there are TWO camps in opposition,) I find it hard to escape the conclusion that it's the great lump of moderates in the middle who are the ones in favor of a reform, and would probably like the reform in the healthcare bills if they only knew what it was -- but that about half the moderates, in this case the Republican moderates, don't want the Dems to score a political win with it.

The fact that you got all emotional about an election doesn't prove anything.

Posted by: Lee_A_Arnold | January 25, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Klein does not make clear whether people were asked whether they support health care reform or the House bill or the Senate bill. There are significant differences among the three. Since neither the House nor especially Senate bills are health care reform bills, maybe a majority in Massachusetts want Congress to pass a true health care reform bill, not one of the phony bills already passed by each house of Congress.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | January 25, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Ezra, you'll do anything to keep your hopes for big government healthcare alive, but come on citing the opinion of non voters. Who cares about non voters. Maybe we should have taken a poll after Obama got elected to see what non voters thought about his agenda. If they had been opposed to it I guess that means unders Ezra's rule Obama should have just dropped everything he was trying to do. The fact is that Scott Brown won the election and he ran as being adamantly opposed to Obamacare. His supporters who were in the majority are the only one who count.

Posted by: RobT1 | January 25, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Wait!!! Its not this at all. Its GW Bush! Thats what is stopping this whole thing. That GW is so brilliant he's stopping Govt Healthcare!

Posted by: jercary | January 25, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

This poll should NOT surprise anyone. Fox News has blown this Brown win WAAAAAAY out of proportion. Brown ran a strong campaign and won by a mere 3%.

Massachusetts already enjoys a state-run universal healthcare system. The state has no dog in the national healthcare fight.

Nationally, the Brown win is really a tempest in a teabag. The 60 vote super-majority in the Senate really never existed anyway, because President Obama never used it...and it appeared he never would.

So, the current score is:

Senate: Dems 59 votes - GOP 41 votes
House: Dems 257 votes - GOP 178 votes
White House: Dems 1 vote - GOP 0 votes

Posted by: free-donny | January 25, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Some snippets and my reaction :

" Massachusetts already has universal health care. It has been put in place by Republican Gov Mitt Romney, supported by Scott Brown as a state senator.

Scott Brown is simply playing politics when he's against universal health care at the Federal level. "

Uhm, have you ever thought that Brown is thinking EXACTLY about FEDERAL level?
You DO understand the reason we say FEDERAL is we are a FEDERATION not a nation.
And I seem to remember Scott Brown saying the "one size fits all state's" solution won't work.

Now ... if you WANT us to be one NATION with a NATIONAL government and a NATIONAL plan, you might think about holding a constitutional convention to get rid of all those pesky STATE rights!

Brown is for each STATE deciding what kind of health care THEY want, with the FEDERAL government butting out ... as they should, since there is NO Interstate sales of health insurance ( thus no interstate commerce thus no commerce clause ).

This allows Brown to SUPPORT Mass answer for MASS and not support it being foisted upon other states that do not want it.

Remember -- he represents MASS and no one else. NOBODY else!
Which is why YOU didn't get a vote in the election if you are not a citizen of his state.


" So, the House should pass the Senate bill immediately, and then the Democrats should enact a major information campaign for the next half-year: ..."


Uhmmmmm ... the HAVE enacted a major information campaign for almost a whole damn year.
And have been getting their butts kicked as polling drops and drops and drops ... what makes you think they won't CONTINUE getting their butts kicked?

You do know that doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result is a sign of insanity?


This comment is for the posts that will come. Talking about how the voters need to be made aware that the Republicans are the party of No.

Uhm ... it is looking like that is what the voters WANT. They are thinking "Damn straight! We need MORE people who just say no!"

The party of no nonsense only works until you find out that many people WISH ( like the mother in a grocery store who keeps giving her kid candy when he screams and throws a fit ) someone was around to say no!

Posted by: chromenhawk | January 25, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Gee - and NO! regulation of new financial assets just worked so well, too!

Posted by: Lee_A_Arnold | January 25, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company