Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Just deserts for Massachusetts Democrats?

A new poll from Suffolk University and the decision by two noted pollsters to declare the race a toss-up provide more evidence that voters in the Bay State could do the unthinkable next Tuesday: fill the senate seat held for almost 47 years by Ted Kennedy with a Republican. If that happens, it will be a bit of cosmic justice exacted on the state's Democrats. Not once, but twice, they changed the Massachusetts law on filling Senate vacancies to maintain their hold on power.

The Suffolk survey of 500 Massachusetts voters shows Republican state Sen. Scott Brown leading the commonwealth's Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 50 percent to 46 percent. Because the margin for error is 4.4 percent, they're tied. But this shouldn't be in a state where the Democrats currently control the governor's mansion, the state house and senate and every seat in the congressional delegation.

The survey shows that crankiness over the health reform effort in Washington is playing a roll in Coakley's problems. She hasn't helped herself with a bad debate performance this week and a clumsy and listless campaign overall. But I suspect the voters don't like being manipulated, either.

Before 2004, Massachusetts law gave the governor power to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy. But Democrats feared that then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, would put a fellow GOPer in the seat if Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, made it to the White House. So they changed the law to require a special election 145 to 160 days after declaration of the vacancy. Until then, the seat would sit empty. Before his death last August, Kennedy called on Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to quickly appoint someone to his Senate seat. After his death, the state legislature changed the law again to allow Patrick to fill the seat with someone who would serve until Tuesday's election. Patrick tapped Paul Kirk, a former chairman of the Democratic Party and close friend of Kennedy's.

Gubernatorial appointment to fill senate vacancies is undemocratic. Voters should have a say in who represents them in Washington. But had Massachusetts Democrats left the system enough alone six years ago, they wouldn't be facing the scare of their lives right now.

By Jonathan Capehart  | January 15, 2010; 7:24 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Be afraid, Virginia Democrats
Next: That 'partisan' Tim Kaine

Comments

It would totally serve MA for Brown to be elected. I love how they say they may not certify him until Feb so they can get their vote in on health care. i hope this comes back to haunt them big time.

Posted by: FLvet | January 15, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

"I've known candidates to shoot themselves in the foot. I've just never known one to reload so quickly."

Martha Coakley has made more stumbles than any candidate I've ever seen--including standing by while her staff pushed a credentialed journalist to the ground on video. She tried to paint Scott Brown as "denying rape victims care" for supporting a "conscience clause" and then got caught on radio saying Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms. (In Massachusetts, 2nd most Catholic state in the country!) She dissed Red Sox fans ("What am I supposed to do? Shake hands outside of Fenway Park? In the cold?)

And she can't spell "Massachusettes."

Chokely is doomed.

Posted by: SWSomerville | January 15, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

1. In your title, were you referring to an arid land or a dinner ending sweet? If it is the dinner ending sweet, the correct spelling is "dessert."
2. I just can't believe each day the statements and photos coming out of the Coakley campaign. If I had not made my decision earlier, I certainly would either change or know who I was voting for now. I have listened to Scott Brown on several local radio programs over the past several weeks-he is clear spoken on any of the questions that have come up. To me, Ms. Coakley will go to Washington in lock step with the rest of the MA delegation.

Posted by: slgjeg4 | January 15, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The rich liberals in the blue states have come to a decision point.

For many years, they could sit in their lovely suburban houses and sneer at George Bush, religious nuts, and the War on Terror.

Now, however, it has become clear that what the Democrats have in store for them is a 50% tax increase, reduced services and benefits, and endless lectures on the environment and racism.

Socialism always seems attractive until it affects you personally. If 'tax the rich' is the tune, guess which states will get hit the hardest?

Posted by: vinyl1 | January 15, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

if you saw the picture of Chokely standing there as the reporter is pushed to the ground, well that could be you and she will just stand there and watch...
is this who you want as senator...

Posted by: DwightCollins | January 15, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

If Obama decides to come to Mass to help he will assure a landslide for Brown. He has mistakenly bought into the myth of the Kennedy's that resides everywhere but Mass. We know who Ted Kennedy was. The whole Commonwealth is laughing at Obama.

Posted by: lappis | January 15, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Maybe changing the rules back and forth to suit the situation will be seen by a few voters in Massachusetts as hypocritical and manipulative, but this state has the highest percentage of Democrats in the country. Most of them could care less.

The health care issue is settled anyway, the vote will occur before Coakley takes her seat.

Posted by: magellan1 | January 15, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Capehart has given an honest assessment laying tremendous blame to some of the most blatant partisan manipulation at the state government level of a democratic process in the modern era of politics.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 15, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Ted Kennedy would have supported the current healthcare legislation. Therefore, any pleas to save "Kennedy's seat" ring hollow.

Posted by: tina5 | January 15, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Coakley saying that Catholics shouldn't work in ERs, just sums it up for me, as a lifelong but ethnic, working-class-background Massachusetts Democrat. That's why I voted for Romney--though he was a gross failure and backstabbed my fair state, his opponent, Shannon O'Brien, was a knee-jerk, cookie-cutter pro-abortion type. I went to UMass, I grew up that way, but I'm nearing 50 and my views are more pro-life. Just replay the 1980 script: ordinary people sick of old-line knee-jerkism. That doesn't cut it anymore, and Coakley typifies the patronage-ridden Mass. establishment (hire my son as jail guard, I hire your kid to work the Pike toll booth). Add to that the widespread disaffection I see with Obama (I backed him from day one and now can barely stand to look at his picture; look at his cave-ins on real health care reform; Israel; stupid wars like Iraq, to Big Pharma, etc.) and the recipe is not good for the Dems. I wouldn't vote for Coakley. I'm sick of eastern Mass. Dems. I know I'm not alone, either. I'm no tea-bagger but you can't just take that seat for granted with careerist insiders, DA types, etc. Almost like a virtual patronage--ownership of a Senate seat by right. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Plutonium57 | January 15, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

It's not that Massachusetts objects to Democratic policies, it's a matter of frustration that the Dems aren't getting more accomplished. Rather than recognizing that this is due to Republican obstruction, Massachusetts may well cut off its nose to spite its face by electing Brown.

Massachusetts Dems need to get this video circulated. It shows Brown at a Tea Party rally, proving that he lied when he claimed not to know about the Tea Party movement:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/14/824925/-MA-Sen:-Video-exposes-Browns-false-tea-party-claim

Posted by: bamccampbell | January 15, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

As someone from Mass, I think its less about manipulating, than the fact that Brown has worked his tail off over the last month and Coakley has not. While I don;t believe that Brown's beliefs are in line with Mass voters, Coakley has not delivered the message as to why she shoudl be elected.

Mass is not as one-sided as people think. There are more un-enrolled or independent voters than Dems in Mass, and Mass has consitently elected GOP governors. Whether he pulls this out or not, he has run a better campaign.

Posted by: jjj141 | January 15, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I believe the headline should read "Just desserts for Massachusetts Democrats?"

That is, unless there is a desert in the Bay State of which I am unaware.

Posted by: pjbugala | January 15, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Or it could be construed as "deserts" as leaving the party, crossing the line, tired of being used.

Oh BTW - I agree with Schilling though I am no fan of the Red Sox. A person should be out among the constituents, not whining because it is cold out. It that what you really want representing you in DC?

Posted by: zendrell | January 15, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

There's always more to the story.
In Massachusetts, the voters have concerns other than the woefully inept and unappealing Martha Coakley.
In a one party state, things sooner or later get out of hand. In Massachusetts, things are off the charts.
The patronage system has been in place here for generations. Accordingly, the “politically appointed” matriculate to positions of power. Once empowered, they cannot be second-guessed by anyone within the system. Unqualified and undeserving friends and relatives are given lucrative (with an 80% pension) state jobs. Ask any voter and they will have a tale for you.
One example: the probation department.
I know competent, conscientious probation officers (and there are plenty of them) who live in fear of who will next occupy the desk next to them. There are scandals within the department, but all incidents are hushed up, and, if the situation dictates, the offending officer will be moved to a different county court, sometimes rewarded with a better position, depending on the power of their connection.
Concerned officers within the system know full well that there is nowhere to turn for justice. As is the case in criminal conspiracies, the prevailing maxim is “Don’t Make Waves”.
Now imagine the voters approaching this election. They are offered a choice between an unknown whose values are an anathema to what Massachusetts has proudly stood for, and a hack who will steadfastly protect the status quo.

Posted by: grossco | January 15, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Scott Brown has been a legislative hack for 10 years with no accomplishments. See his website - there aren't any. He's a pretty face, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Mass. can do better.

Posted by: jake14 | January 15, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

the speculation -- in fairness that is all it is -- that the Massachusetts Secretary of State might delay certification of a Brown win (inshallah) has been a huge boost for Brown. In the year of Ben Nelson, this kind of cynical hanky-panky is anathema to a large majority of voters.

Go Brown!

Posted by: miglefitz | January 15, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Ok, so Coakley stumbled. So did Deeds and Corzine...

Guess we have decided not to look at the big picture yet.

Posted by: Woodbridge45 | January 15, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

SWSomerville:

VERY clever, VERY funny comment. Chokely indeed! Thank you. If Somerville votes for her opponent it is truly the end of the world and, best of all, of the Kennedy Cult and DemoCare.

Even the GLOBE has a column today excoriating Coakley for a lousy campaign. Who'd have ever thunk?!

Even if he loses God forbid it's been a wonderful few days.

Go Brown!

Posted by: miglefitz | January 15, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse


A growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."


Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I remember from my History classes in school that the original Tea Party took place in the "Bay State". Tuesday, you have another opportunity to stand up to the tyranny in Washington just as your forefathers did so many years ago! The thoughts and prayers of millions of Americans are with you are with you. The election of Mr. Brown will send a message ever bit as strong as the one sent more than 200 years ago that "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH". "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION". The present Democrat Congressmen and Senators do not represent the wishes, hopes, and desires of the majority of the American people!!!

ABCD (ANYBODY BUT A CHICAGO style DEMOCRAT)

Posted by: TexasTechsan68 | January 15, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Obama has once again turned the word "Democrat" into a synonym for "deadly disease."

He has brought a horrible epidemic of Chicago-style corruption and incompetence to Washington that is threatening to destroy our nation.

Posted by: Jerzy | January 15, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

After stinging election losses in Virginia and New Jersey -- not to mention Copenhagen, where he failed to win the 2016 Olympics for his hometown of Chicago -- the enemic President Obama is staying away from what could become another painful loss.
Even though the campaign of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has been making quiet entreaties, the president has no plans to visit her in the last week of the special election to fill the Senate barstool once hiccupped in by the late Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

It would be heavenly for Brown to get elected.

The electorate every where is hopping mad. The Democrats need to have their apple cart turned over! Go Brown! Win it for the Gipper!

Posted by: kathy26 | January 15, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Seven Reasons Not To Vote For Martha Coakley :

The Big Dig tunnel collapse (shameless corruption and cronyism of the very worst kind)

Coakley's shady deal with a notorious pedophile (John Geoghan)

The financial disclosure "mistake" in which Martha Coakley failed to list $200,000 to $250,000 in assets on her financial disclosure forms for the Senate race.

Her failure in the Henry Louis Gates arrest in Cambridge last July

The Louise Woodward case

The Menino ?emailgate? affair

Former state rep Mark Howland wind turbine fiasco leaving Bristol County residents out millions

Posted by: fnhaggerty | January 15, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

OBAMACARE IS A NIGHTMARE - we all know it except those radicals that have hijacked the Democratic party. Serves em right if they lose... Go Brown Go !!!!!

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | January 15, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

How quickly we all forget and how typical of short sided and ADD Americans to so quickly attack a President that has worked exctremely hard to take on a bevy of crises that were created by the inept and inattebntive Republican policies of the past. It was REPUBLICAN LAISSEZ FAIRE that brought us the current economic crises,it was REPUBLICAN inattention to health care that has Americans locked into bad jobs to keep marginal health insurance and skyrocketing, unregulated health care costs that eat up twice as much of our GDP than any other industrialized country. This President is trying to clean up the enormous mess left over by REPUBLICAN GREED that says cut taxes for the wealthiest, but allow the Debt to run unchecked because "DEFICITS DONT MATTER" and no one will even give him one year to try and get things under control. So what if some Dem politcians are bumbling and stumbling, they are POLITICIANS! How quickly we forget about Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, Dick Cheney shooting a friend in the face. Sure, lets not even give Obama one year to try and put this country back on track and give the most challenging job in the world to the pea-brained SARAH PALIN. You people are pathetic idiots.

Posted by: prayforsnowDC | January 15, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart has made more than a few points here of mistakes during this brief campaign. I too agree that our legislature here in the Bay State has been too quick to adjust certain laws to their liking. At any rate that's in the past and unlikely to see the light of day ever again. What Jonathan doesn't address though is that this seat is critical to the nation's future as the majority voted overwhelmingly to elect a progressive administration in 2008 to address and fix the Bush/Chaney disaster that has put millions of us on our uppers. For the first time in a century we're close to national health care that will enliven our lost industrial base and spur small business to more productivity and job creation. Brown is a joke, and a liar about his record. Coakely may not be Joan of Arc, but Martha is of and for the working people of Massachusetts. They would be making a monumental mistake to vote against their own interests as they did with Reagan and Romney.
I'm no dope; Coakley has my vote!

Posted by: Squaredealer | January 15, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Go Scott! Massachusetts needs change we can believe in after our 40 years of Democratic monopoly politics seem to have gone national.

From a Taxachusetts resident, trust me: America, you don't want the Democratic machine monopoly for as long as anyone can remember.

Posted by: bstanman83 | January 15, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Junglejim, How do you know Obama's health care plan is a nightmare? Did you actually read the bills? Some of us did. Mr. Capehart, well done. You have explained the mess of MA politics.

Posted by: Thinking4 | January 15, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Just deserts" and "playing a roll." For crying out loud, Capehart, did you pass freshman English? How did you get this job?

Is the Post afraid to fire you?

Posted by: jpfann | January 15, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

It's hilarious to read the commenters who are accusing the columnist of misspelling "deserts" in the title!

He spelled it correctly. "Deserts" here is used in its meaning of "something that is deserved." One "s." He wasn't talking about an after-dinner sweet.

Posted by: rowerinva | January 15, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Capehart: Amen! Just deserts is correct! Many Bay State voters, myself included, have been furious with the political shenanigans used by the Democrats to secure placeholder Paul Kirk for Ted Kennedy's seat. They ignored the voters to help Harry Reid secure 60 seats for a vote on healthcare reform.
Martha Coakley has been just as infuriating by taking voters for granted and acting as though she had already won the race.
Scott Brown, to his credit, has run a smart, energized, aggressive campaign. He has turned this into a really competitive race by campaigning in the snow and cold and putting up attention grabbing ads like the terrific JFK spot. He is also likeable and approachable.
Coakley, meanwhile, opted to spend most of the short campaign indoors to keep her hands warm, only meeting with donors like big pharmas in Washington this week and influential party backers. Her complacency has been astounding, considering what's at stake. Being a female candidate with a D after her name is not enough. She has to earn the votes.
Like voters elswhere, Massachusetts residents are also very worried about the economy and job losses and the cost of the proposed healthcare reform. Whatever happens next Tuesday Brown's campaign will make political history in a state that loves politics as much as sports.

Posted by: pjsilva | January 15, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Thinking4 wrote: Mr. Junglejim, How do you know Obama's health care plan is a nightmare? Did you actually read the bills? Some of us did.
************
Really?? I thought the elite Dumocrats were still negotiating (behind closed doors, of course) what will be contained in this piece of losestlation...

Posted by: jahoby | January 15, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

If Brown wins the Massachusetts senate seat, the Haitian earthquake will be nada compared to this election. The very foundations of the Dummycr*p party with tremble and will perhaps shake the Dummycr*ps so much that they may actually REPRESENT the American voters. "Perhaps" and "may" being the operative words. But then, like lemmings, they may choose to follow obummer right over the cliff into oblivion.

Posted by: segeny | January 15, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"just deserts"?

I like the pun. If Brown wins the Massachusetts senate seat, the Dummycr*ps will find themselves "in the desert" for the next 40 years.

Posted by: segeny | January 15, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that the Democratic Party would allow an election for Teddy's seat. What were they thinking?

Posted by: rusty3 | January 15, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that the Democratic Party would allow an election for Teddy's seat. What were they thinking?

Posted by: rusty3

______________________________________

Post of the Day!!!

And that is why they will lose. They took this seat for granted in a year when a deaf, blind and mute person would have known that nothing is safe, and that America (yes, even Massachusetts) is EXTREMELY upset with the direction this administration and Congress is taking the country.

SAY NO TO THE EMPTY HEAD RUBBER STAMP, MASSACHUSETT(E)S!!

GO SCOTT BROWN!! We believe in the Massachusetts Miracle! (And it helps that Doug Flutie and Curt Schilling are on your side -- those guys know a thing or two about miracles!!)

Posted by: etpietro | January 15, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

My take is somewhat different than most pundits. The connection Scott Brown seems to have with independent minded Massachusetts voter's goes deeper than populism or anti-machine politics. The eureka moment occurred during the debate and Mr Brown's response to David Gergen "It's the peoples seat"! The instinctual almost tribal connection many felt was not only agreement with Brown's clarity call, but, a olfactory arousal to Gergens rather decayed premise. For me, I recalled the condescending interviews during the last election cycle where mainstream media pandered to Obama-Biden and choreographed "gotcha soundbites with Sarah Palin. Gergen's own CNN comes to mind, when Drew Griffin warped quotes from the National Review facilitating the ambushing of Palin. Of course, Charles Gibson's condescending interview also stands out.. Scott Browns forensic abilities not only exposed his opponents emptiness, but also left, Gergen, a metaphoric media liberal symbol naked and slack jawed.

Posted by: pauldia | January 15, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Posted by: stephenwhelton | January 15, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I have said it elsewhere and I'll say it here. If he wins, I will eat my hat. I will record it on video. I will post it on YouTube. I will give you all the link.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 15, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

It is fitting that the partisans from Hazzard County would list Coakley as the reason for the Big Dig tunnel collapse. To the folks in Hazzard County, she probably is to blame.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 15, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS THE FIRST ARTICE THIS WRITTER EVERY WROTE WORTH READING AND HE IS RIGHT THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST

Posted by: 3918john | January 15, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

It's hilarious to read the commenters who are accusing the columnist of misspelling "deserts" in the title!

He spelled it correctly. "Deserts" here is used in its meaning of "something that is deserved." One "s." He wasn't talking about an after-dinner sweet.

Posted by: rowerinva | January 15, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

-----------------------------------------
Actually it's about 50-50 in usage, with a slight preference to 'deserts'

"Just deserts"= 10.9M
"Just desserts"= 8.7M

Posted by: Paladin7b | January 15, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

ACORN has been sent in, their emergency response team. They were given an emergency fund taken from taxing the rich, well not the real rich like the Kennedys or anybody but those that are rich enough. With this "grant" they will work to "get out the vote" from whereever they can find it, or make it up. So don't worry I predict a Democratic win, no chance of them loseing as long as their in one ounce of gold left in the kitty. Just let Coakley tell them about the "earmarks" that Reid has already promised she can add to the healthcare bill, that should change the outlook in about a nano second.

Posted by: staterighter | January 15, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Profile of the Failed Obama Presidency

what to expect from a failed Obama Presidency??

In his monumental work "Hitler and Stalin" Alan Bullock notes both Hitler and Stalin were narcissists. ProCounsel is NOT stating Obama is either Hitler or Stalin. But his analysis, written long before Obama's ascendancy, is a useful model.

Bullock explains narcissism on page 11:

"In such a state only the person himself, his needs,feelings and thoughts, everything and and everybody as they relate to him are experienced as fully real, while everybody and everything otherwise lacks reality or interest."

Bullock describes the effects of narcissism and provides a predictive model useful for Obama on page 343:

"Narcissistic personalities are convinced of their special qualities and their superiority over others, and any threat to this self image--such as being criticized, shown up, or defeated--produces a violent outrage and often a desire for revenge."

Bullock cites 3 psychological reactions Stalin used to guard his narcissistic self image. Bullock credits Robert Tucker for these insights on page 356. The 3 reactions to expect for the Obama profile would be:

a. Repression–simply blankly deny the truth, no matter how obvious or even if caught on video

b. Rationalization-Admit but use the fault as proof of his zeal

c. Projection-Obama will attribute to others the motives and attitudes he refuses to admit in himself

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 15, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

".......it will be a bit of cosmic justice exacted on the state's Democrats."

more than you may know........

Consider that Obama mocked the Bible books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus by name. Obama’s speech is still on You-Tube. These books are in the Jewish part of the Bible, the Old Testament , which is also part of the Christian Bible.

Deuteronomy 28, in the very book Obama mocked by name, pronounces specific curses:

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you

(Numerous detailed curses omitted)

20 The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him

Posted by: ProCounsel | January 15, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Coakley will NOT lose. It will be closer than expected, but there is no way in hell Massachusetts will elect a Republican to replace Kennedy on Tuesday.

Posted by: dlopata | January 15, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

You can't spell "desserts" and I'm supposed to listen to what you have to say?

Posted by: risaryan1 | January 15, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I hope the media is finally happy. For months they have pounded the false meme that failure to pass health care reform is somehow a "Democratic failure", when in reality it has failed because NOT ONE REPUBLICAN HAS LIFTED A FINGER TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Depending on the poll, anywhere between 50 and 65% of the American people want a public option included. 73% of our doctors do. But because states where practically no one lives get as much power in the Senate as places where everyone lives, and because 60% is needed, it's a tough go with one one party basically giving the American people the big finger.

THAT'S the real story. But our corporate media won't be caught dead telling the truth. They depend too much on health insurance advertising dollars to do that.

Posted by: B2O2 | January 15, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Jonathon, I think that, after supper, the Democrats will wander in their just desert searching for their dessert.

Posted by: JohnRice | January 15, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Ahh, ProCounsel. The internet allows folks like him to come in off the streetcorner and stop the foaming at the mouth. All he needs to do is troll every single message board on the WaPo site... all day, every day. He is either retired or in prison. Has to be.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 15, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

No, I think it's "deserts", as in the deserts the Dems will wander around in for 40 years after the 2010 elections.

Posted by: mondomex | January 15, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

ProCounsel--That is awesome! I have never seen the phrase "Numerous detailed curses omitted" used before! That is going to be my NEW buzz phrase. As in "If you kids don't stop fighting back there I'm gonna pull over and (numerous detailed curses omitted) and then you'll stop!" Thanks for the hookup!

Posted by: mondomex | January 15, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

BTW-"Deserts" is the correct spelling. That word actually used to mean "that which is deserved" not just "a hot arid place". That meaning has fallen into disuse but the phrase remains. Ya learn something new everyday!

Posted by: mondomex | January 15, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Mondomex is correct. "Just deserts" does indeed mean "that which one deserves." It has nothing to do with a sweet treat.

Posted by: carlaclaws | January 15, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

The present system sounds like the fairest: Immediate representation, with a special election shortly thereafter.

Posted by: bfieldk | January 16, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

"Just deserts" in the title is correct as it is derived from the word "deserve". But in the phrase "playing a roll", the correct spelling is "role". Well - So much for vocabulary.

The reason Dems are in trouble is President Obama's agenda. Clinton's "It's the economy stupid" is still true. Obama should have tackled jobs first - jobs, jobs, jobs - and that translates into the economy doesn't it? People don't care about health care if they don't have a job. Not only do jobs provide a roof over our heads, food, clothing and other essentials, jobs give status, a feeling of being a contributor.

The fact that 60 votes are needed to pass Health Care has given too much power to some. One individual - Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and now a new MA senator - can control the agenda of the entire nation. What a shame!

Posted by: donaldeasley | January 16, 2010 2:00 AM | Report abuse

"The Suffolk survey of 500 Massachusetts voters shows Republican state Sen. Scott Brown leading the commonwealth's Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 50 percent to 46 percent. Because the margin for error is 4.4 percent, they're tied."

==================================

Jonathan, this is simply not so.

You are assuming that with Brown at 50 and a MOE of 4.4, it is just as likely that he is at 46 as at 50 (or 54). Similarly with Coakley at 46, you are assuming that it is just as likely that she is at 50. Both assumptions are common in the media, but wrong.

Yes, there is a chance that Brown might be at 46 and Coakley at 50 given the MOE. But this is far from 50-50.

When Brown is 4 points ahead in a sample of this size and given common statistical assumptions, in all likelihood he really is ahead. The chances are really very small that Coakley has the same percentage or more.

You might ask your polling person to explain this to you and the others at the Post who promote this misconception.

Regards
C54

Posted by: car54 | January 16, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

No state "deserves" another Repugnant one in the Senate, just to say NO

Those of you who denigrate our President spew forth the same vitriol voiced by Rush, etc....none of which is true. If you took time to understand President Obama's policies, you would know that he is doing exactly what he said he would do...the only thing WRONG is the lies that the right wingers promulgate daily.

I would vote for Coakley even though I don't think she was the best candidate the Democrats could have found...but she is clearly better than Brown. I wish Vicki Kennedy had run.

Posted by: BarbarainPalmSprings | January 17, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company