Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democratic blame game in full force in Massachusetts Senate special election

1. Less than 24 hours removed from state Attorney General Martha Coakley's (D) stunning loss in the Massachusetts Senate race, Democrats were at daggers-drawn over whose fault it was. Two rival camps quickly emerged: Coakley's campaign (and consultant -- in particular pollster Celinda Lake) versus national Democrats. From a Coakley campaign adviser came a strongly worded memo, arguing that she had consistently raised concern about voter apathy in advance of the special election and asked for fundraising help that she never received from national Democrats. One senior party official dismissed the memo as a "pack of lies" and -- in a memo rebutting the Coakley memo -- made several points including: 1) National Democrats had contacted the campaign on Jan. 2 asking what could be done to help and didn't hear back for four days. 2) The money problems were Coakley's and hers alone; "If the Coakley campaign did have money troubles perhaps it was because the candidate and campaign went on hiatus/vacation for the last 10 days of December," read the memo. 3) "Remember -- the most notable events of the last week had nothing to do with the national Democratic Party -- it was: Schilling is a Yankee, telling voters she didn't need to shake their hands, a Disastrous trip to Washington DC and a terrible debate performance," read the memo. The simple fact -- as we noted last night -- is that everyone from the White House to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to the Coakley campaign deserves their share of blame. It wasn't any one group or groups that cost Democrats this race but rather a confluence of factors: an angry electorate, a skillful Republican message that framed Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R) as the outsider and Coakley as the status quo, a damaged Democratic brand in state politics, a health care bill that remains far less popular than the White House is willing to admit and, yes, a poor candidate who made a series of blunders that reinforced the idea that she was out of touch. Democrats did well in sharing the credit during the ups of 2006 and 2008; they would now do well to share a bit of the blame for this loss.

2. As expected, the idea of delaying Brown's seating was quickly washed away amidst his victory. Even before Brown delivered his victory speech, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (D) put out a statement insisting that "it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated." Brown, for his part, made clear he was ready, willing and able to head to Washington as soon as today. He said that he had spoken to interim Sen. Paul Kirk (D), who drew headlines last week for his insistence that he would vote for final passage of health care regardless of what happened in the special, and that Kirk "welcomes me as soon as I can get there." The truth of the matter on health care is that there are simply no good options out there for the White House and Senate Democrats. As the Post's Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery wrote today: "Unless Democrats can thread a very narrow legislative needle, Republican Scott Brown's upset victory over Martha Coakley in Massachusetts on Tuesday could lead to the collapse of a health-care bill that, only weeks ago, appeared close to becoming law." There seems to be considerable resistance from the House to simply pass the Senate bill and it's hard to imagine that resistance not growing in the wake of the Coakley defeat. An attempt to adjust the bill to attract a moderate Republican -- Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) would seem the most obvious target -- will take both time and some fence mending as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) made clear recently that he didn't believe Snowe was negotiating in good faith. The White House continues to believe that the worst of all worlds is no bill at all and, as a result, are likely to explore all options that will allow the President to sign something. But, for an Administration that made clear they wanted to clear the decks of health care prior to the President's State of the Union address, that idea now seems like a pipe dream.

3. Major political news has a tendency to spawn great journalism. A quick trip through a few must-reads from the past 24 hours: 1) The Post's Dan Balz on the anger factor in Massachusetts and what it means going forward 2) The Boston Globe's Susan Milligan on the Kennedy effect 3) The Times' Adam Nagourney on why Massachusetts wasn't just another special election.

4. Former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) formally announced his candidacy on Tuesday to reclaim the post he held for much of the 1980s and 1990s , and immediately became the favorite to knock off Gov. Chet Culver (D) in November. Thanks to the name identification built up over four terms as governor, Branstad starts the primary race against -- among others -- 2006 lieutenant governor nominee Bob Vander Plaats as an overwhelming favorite. (A poll leaked to the Des Moines Register by Branstad showed him at 63 percent among likely primary voters.) Should Branstad, who has been described by some observers as a bit rusty on the trail after years of campaign inaction, he would be, at worst, an even money bet against Culver who has seen his approval ratings drop precipitously since he was elected in 2006. Culver's situation in Iowa -- and the prospect of a Branstad candidacy -- has led some observers to speculate that the Democratic governor might retire rather than run again. Culver, however, has given no indication he is mulling stepping aside.

5. Looking for more wit and wisdom from yours truly about the meaning of the Massachusetts' Senate race? The Fix will be on "The Diane Rehm Show" today from 10 am to 11 am alongside the New York Times' Peter Baker -- breaking it all down. Tune in!

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 20, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: First thoughts on Scott Brown's special election victory
Next: Jon Stewart and the Massachusetts Senate election

Comments

@ 37thand0street,

Nope, the constitutional amendment on direct election of senators only applies to the regular elections every six years. States set their own laws with regards to filling a seat vacated mid-term. Many states allow direct appointments by the governor to fill the remainder of the term.

Why do you think that Rod Blagojevich got driven from office? Obama vacated a Senate seat, and Illinois law gives the governor full authority to make an appointment lasting until the end of the term. There is no special election in Illinois, and Burris serves until Obama would have normally been up for reelection.

The law was previously the same in Massachusetts until 2004. If a Senate seat opened up, the governor appointed someone to fill the remainder, and then a new election would happen on the normal 6-year cycle. But, confident of a Kerry win, the Democratic legislature decided to pull a stunt to prevent Romney from making an appointment, and Brown's election was the direct result. This election never had to happen if the state legislature had just left well enough alone.

It's a delicious bit of irony when you think about it.

Posted by: blert | January 20, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic:

Dingy Harry Reid said Wednesday that there is no firm commitment for Democrats to rush a healthcare bill through Congress this year.

“First of all, we’re not going to rush into anything,” he said. “We’re going to wait until the new senator arrives until we do anything more on health care.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31734.html#ixzz0dCVGiS4T

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Gee, 37th, you seem pretty happy slinging insults around. And please, have that caps lock key checked out.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade

Don't be a crybaby


Most of the liberals are afraid to show their faces here today

We are still looking for an apology from broad___joe.

So is Rasmussen.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Since my party (American Independent) has never won so much as a SINGLE Congressional seat, I can at least profess "clean hands" in that regard ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

kablooey


I just saw that too - have the House pass the Senate bill - and then settle the budgetary differences through reconciliation.


Obama could try that - but it would be a disaster.


The American people do not want the health care bill. The bluest of the blue States has agreed. If Nancy wants to lose 100 seats in November, I guess she could go for it.


However, I'm not sure the democrats in her party want to risk their seats on this suicide mission.


And that is what it is A SUICIDE MISSION.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I support a framework for universal health care that allows for private choice and respect for the personal conscious. I don't subscribe to the thought it needs to be paid on the back of health care providers, the rich and the young. I don't subscribe to the thought it needs to be removed from personal responsibility. And I certainly don't subscribe to the thought that government alone can solve our programs. Governments are not gods.

To claim that the bills proposed by Obama, Pelosi or Reid were ANY of things you or I advocate for AT ANY time during their formation would be inaccurate. Before it even came to Congress, Obama had negotiated with pharmaceutical companies and unions for their own protections.

Posted by: cprferry
------------------------------------------
A voice of reason and a good starting point to go forward for a healthcare plan where everyone is a stakeholder.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

CPR. I have to go now, but I hope we get to continue this, because based on what you just said, I think you and I could find common ground on this.

Jake, if the tables were turned, would Republicans make sure the Democrat who was just elected could get his vote counted? (ref: Al Franken) I think if you are going to point the finger of accusation at your political opposition, you should make sure your own hands are clean.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow, cprferry, and I thought that I was the cynical one here. Welcome aboard!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
Like Obama's fulfilled on his other promises?
Also note that he said Senate. He said nothing of the House passing the bill that former interim Senator Kirk cast the 60th passing vote for.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I was being pummelled?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Elijah24,

I support a framework for universal health care that allows for private choice and respect for the personal conscious. I don't subscribe to the thought it needs to be paid on the back of health care providers, the rich and the young. I don't subscribe to the thought it needs to be removed from personal responsibility. And I certainly don't subscribe to the thought that government alone can solve our programs. Governments are not gods.

To claim that the bills proposed by Obama, Pelosi or Reid were ANY of things you or I advocate for AT ANY time during their formation would be inaccurate. Before it even came to Congress, Obama had negotiated with pharmaceutical companies and unions for their own protections.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama just took the option of "jamming" through any healthcare bill before Senator-Elect Brown (R-MA) is seated.

"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," the president said. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

(R-MA) I just had to see that in print again. I never thought I would live to see that again in my lifetime ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

OK. That gave me a chuckle. Makes me think of the old WWF. Nocoaler is being held up by the ref and Elijah is being pummeled by Jake "the Snake" D and 37th. [Note to Jake - That's a reference to Jake the Snake Roberts, not an insult.]

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I win!

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

A threeway tie for top posters today:

23 37thand0street
23 elijah24
23 JakeD
10 leapin
9 cprferry
9 magnoliabel
8 bsimon1
6 drivl
5 12BarBlues
3 6 posters
2 10 posters
1 38 posters

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to the Democratic blame game:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31717.html

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Jake and CPR, We are the only industrialized nation on earth who does not offer a government health-care plan to her citizens. You can raise all the anecdotes you like about people waiting in lines, but the nations that give their citizens health-care almost all have a longer life-expectancy, and quality-of-life than we have. For every "waiting in line" story from one of those countries, there are a dozen "I couldn't afford treatment until it was too late" stories from here. Your hatred of your government is costing your compatriots their lives.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar Blues,
State programs exist for you in your state of California and 34 other states.
I understand it's rough. It's a hard story. I can see why many on the left jumped on it to help pass a comprehensive health care loaded with junk, destructive policies and special interest handouts.
However, your story is not hopeless and does not call on the rest of the country to fix it in this fashion. It's only an issue in 15 states.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Jake and cpr,

You guys really take the cake. I am a REAL live person, who can't access the healthcare system because I can't afford it. I am not poor, but I am not rich. I don't HAVE $18,000 extra. Your ideas of greyhound bus tickets are insulting. Your ideas of selling my house and moving my possessions across the country are insulting. You are insulting to ME.

My story is inconvenient to people who want to believe that EVERYONE can get healthcare somehow. You WANT to believe it, but it isn't true. I know it because I live it. You don't know it because you don't live it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 20, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Back on the actual topic (from CNN.com):

Among the options under consideration is having the House pass an identical version of the bill approved by the Senate in December. Doing so would allow the measure to proceed straight to Obama's desk to be signed into law.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Wednesday it "remains to be seen" whether there's enough support in the House for such a course of action.

"There's a lot of good things in the Senate bill," she said. "As you know, 85 percent of the bills are the same."

Pelosi argued "the message from Massachusetts" was that voters are angry about special state-specific provisions added to the Senate bill in order to win over wavering Democrats. She specifically cited a provision exempting Nebraska from the costs of expanded Medicaid coverage - a provision critics have labeled "the Cornhusker kickback."

"Some of those issues are lightning-rod issues and some of that has to be changed," Pelosi said. "I don't think our members should be asked to support something that even Sen. (Ben) Nelson" - the Nebraska Democrat who initially pushed for the provision - "has backed away from."

A number of House liberals, however, are pushing back hard against the idea of adopting the Senate plan without major changes. The more conservative Senate measure contains a number of provisions unpopular with progressives, including a 40 percent tax on insurance companies providing high-end "Cadillac" health plans.

"If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we're going to end up with nothing," Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Massachusetts, said Tuesday. "I don't hear a lot of support on our side."

Several other Democrats echoed Lynch's concerns, telling CNN that even if there was a firm commitment to follow approval of the Senate version with a second bill containing changes negotiated by House and Senate leaders and the White House, they wouldn't vote yes.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

12 Bar Blues,

Guaranteed issue insurance is a private offering.
California and 34 other states have created insurance pools for individuals with high-risk pre-existing conditions. The pools allow them to offer quality insurance at premiums comparable to most others.
It's not perfect. It's not 'hey, go be reckless, the healthy and rich got your back' wrapped in "hope and change" rhetoric. However, it helps alleviate the biggest problem of getting insurance with a pre-existing condition: you're no longer judged just by your own risk, but the collective risks of a pool.

See California's program. http://www.mrmib.ca.gov/MRMIB/MRMIP_subscribers.html

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse


Joe Kennedy is rolling in his grave.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 20, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm not coming up with any solutions FOR YOU (and none of my posts are intended to be legal advice nor do they create an attorney-client relationship). What I am proving FOR EVERYONE ELSE is that "I can't actually get healthcare" is a lie. In addition to all the options I've already listed, by law, every person (even illegal aliens, but that's a whole other thread) that presents at an emergency room must be treated regardless of insurance or other ability to pay. Does anyone ELSE have any questions about any of that?

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

It would be the Smartest thing President Obama and the Democratic Congress and Senate could ever do, just to Shut You Low Life's GOP Talk Meisters Up, Once and for All !!!
Posted by: omaarsblade
------------------------------------------
Turn off MSLSD and chill out. The framers set up some basic, legitimate, and limited functions of the federal government. Conservatives support these functions. The framers also wrote warnings of exceeding the scope of the legitimate functions. Their warnings were wise and have been manifested by the current condition of the US. There are other countries that can be considered for residence that “shut up” oppositional viewpoints. Shutting people up violates our constitution.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Republican Talking Points:

"Limiting Big Government"

"Making a "Government Smaller"

"A Less Intrusive Government"

_________

I'm going to Stamp Out these Republican Talking Points, Once and For All.

I Challenge Scott Brown and Every Damn Republican Senator & Congressman, I Challenge You Now, to Put Up or Admit You're Paid To Play Capitalist....

____________________________________________

1. Send All Stimulus Money Received by Your Governors-State Legislature so the Government can Pay Off Most, If Not All of its Debts to China, Japan, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Other Foreign Countries.

2. Allow the Government to End All Government Entitlement Programs.

3. Let Your State, County and City Governments Handle All Crisis, such as Natural Disastors and let Insurance Companies Pay for Any Housing Damages, when Disastors to Hit your State..

No More FEMA MONEY, we need that MONEY to Pay Of Our Foreign Creditors.

4. Let Your State, County and City Governments Create Jobs for All State Residents.

No Federal Jobs.

Just State, County and City Jobs, Corporations and Small Business Jobs [Local Yocal Jobs] Paying Minimum Wage if Not Higher Wages.

But No Well Paying Federal Government Jobs, Its the "Big Bad, Well Paying Intrusive Government Jobs" that are the Problem..

We Don't want these Federal jobs, like Post Office, NASA, FTC, FBI, CIA, FCC, VA Hospital Jobs, that's the Big Bad Intrusive Government Jobs.

5. Social Security Money is going Bankrupt, so say you Republicans, so lets use the Money to Pay Off Our Nation's Debt to Foreign Countries.

No More Welfare, Food Stamps, no More Grants for College, Earn The Damn Money Your God Damn Selves.

That's called Self Reliance.

That's Exactly what You President Obama Hate Mongering Republican & Tea party People are saying.

It would be the Smartest thing President Obama and the Democratic Congress and Senate could ever do, just to Shut You Low Life's GOP Talk Meisters Up, Once and for All !!!

Posted by: omaarsblade | January 20, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Why do you think you have to keep coming up with solutions for me? Don't you think in ten years I have thought of everything and tried everything? There is no affordable solution for someone like me. NONE.

If I was indigent, I could go on the dole. But I am not indigent and I refuse to ask for charity. I want to pay my way, but I cannot afford $18,000 year. PERIOD.
And neither could most posters here.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 20, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

For the last time, $194 = one-way Greyhound bus ticket from Los Angeles to Boston (I was actually shocked it was so much, since I've booked airfare for LESS than that) or Medicaid. There's always private charities too, but that probably means listening to someone preach about Jesus, so you don't want to bother with that.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

There are none that I am aware of. Republicans aren't bringing ideas. they'er bringin opposition and nothing else. Thats the point. They aren't offering compermise. The only ideas they're offering is "cut this" and "cut that". And after they get something cut, they still refuse to vote for the bill. They're offering 2 letters: N, O.

Posted by: elijah24
------------------------------------------
Queen Nanny State has shut out Paul Ryan's
R-WI. He has ideas and suggestions. Check him out. Please consider that the Queen and the other statists have a political control freak not a healthcare agenda.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

I accept your apology.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
Thanks for bringing up that point. Even cancer patients and others with pre-existing conditions can get affordable health insurance. In 35 states, there exists state programs for high-risk individuals that cap their premiums at no more than 125% the average for the state.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 2:16 PM
------------------------
I live in California. For me, guaranteed issue insurance is $1300/mo, $15,000 per year plus $3,000 out of pocket. That is $18,000 per year to be able to use the system. Even someone making $250,000 per year would hesitate to commit to that expense and I guarantee that I am just a middle class person who doesn't make anything like enough money to add $18,000 per year to my expenses.

Guess I could move to some other state, but short of that, I don't know what else I can do but set up on the sidewalk with my tin cup.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 20, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

No. My point to you is that you keep claiming "I can't actually get healthcare" on every thread, even after I've pointed out many ways you can get healthcare (even assuming your cancer returns). If you aren't going to admit even that, I'm not going to repeat myself on thread after thread, even if you aren't a pro-reform plant.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Letting the repugs run their wars and their Wall Street agenda makes Obama look weak. People want strength. An example is the Healthcare Reform bill was a massive jobs bill, but sold as a tax program.
Posted by: angriestdogintheworld
-----------------------------------------
Excuse me, its BO’s wars now. Delusional spin on healthcare as jobs vs. taxes.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Or, if that's still more expensive then simply moving to Massachusetts or Maryland, then they could do that instead. WORST-CASE scenario (I am not recommending this unless you actually have cancer or some other major disease you can't get treatment for otherwise): Medicaid.

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

ferry, I think Nelson and Landreu are disgraces to my party. I'm not about buying votes, but unfortunately thats what it's come to. And while im all for changing the system, in the mean time, people need healthcare.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

You can presume whatever you want. If you want to believe that people don't get cancer and can't get insurance, so be it. Aren't you the guy who is 77 and on medicare?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 20, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
Thanks for bringing up that point. Even cancer patients and others with pre-existing conditions can get affordable health insurance. In 35 states, there exists state programs for high-risk individuals that cap their premiums at no more than 125% the average for the state.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me Jake, you're right. They did bring ONE idea: Protecting rich hospitals from being sued when they screw up. My mistake.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Elijah24,

You have a very twisted way at looking at representative democracy. Bills shouldn't be supported by vote buying - "give me or cut this and I'll vote." Bills should represent the interests of the people, not their representatives. What you're saying is that Republicans are saying no to a Sen. Nelson or Landreiu deal and challenging Democrats to revise their bills to something they can support.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I'll give the same advice that I gave after the losses in Virginia and New Jersey.... GIVE US CANDIDATES THAT ENERGIZE THE BASE ! That is, trying to appeal to repug moderates is keeping Dems from the polls.... stand for something and fight, this walking around on egg shells does not work because it is not leadership. Obama has 3 more years and he needs to be that guy who ran in '08. If you lose, lose on those ideals. Virtually every Democrat I talk to say the wishy washy attempt to include the Party of No in the debate completely turned them off. And now listening to Kit Bond and Claire McCatskill, we are doomed as a Party. Moderate warmed over repugs are not going to bring the base out. PERIOD. Letting the repugs run their wars and their Wall Street agenda makes Obama look weak. People want strength. An example is the Healthcare Reform bill was a massive jobs bill, but sold as a tax program.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | January 20, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

Even YOU can get healthcare (if you simply keep repeating this canard over and over, I am going to have to assume that you are plant, lying about your cancer scare).

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, cprferry, I knew there were more proposals too.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm very disappointed and discouraged because healthcare is now DEAD. It affects me personally, so I was really hoping. But the voters have spoken: no healthcare reform. Since I can't actually get healthcare, I'm going to invest in healthcare stocks. At least I can get something out of this.

You know, we talk about upholding American values. The value that I'm getting is: "I've got mine and I don't care about you".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Elijah24,

You appear to have taken the Democratic strategy hook, line and sinker. There have been Republican proposals during this session and many before. In the months leading up to the House and Senate vote, there were bipartisan committees that hashed out simple frameworks.

However, they failed to meet the approval of Democratic leadership, which is overwhelmingly liberal, and were ignored in pursuit of their own agenda. Democrats that stood in their way of passing their agenda were bought off and threatened to give them the required number of votes.

Read these two articles to better familiarize yourself with Republican ideas on health care reform:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1007/what-would-a-republican-healthcare-bill-look-like

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

T O R T - R E F O R M

(more than two letters ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

There are none that I am aware of. Republicans aren't bringing ideas. they'er bringin opposition and nothing else. Thats the point. They aren't offering compermise. The only ideas they're offering is "cut this" and "cut that". And after they get something cut, they still refuse to vote for the bill. They're offering 2 letters: N, O.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

elijah24,

Tell us one Republican idea proposed in bipartisan committees that ended up in the House or Senate bill.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Just like he did "everything in his power" to aggressively pursue an agreement on public campaign funds with McCain or broadcast healthcare debate on C-SPAN?

Yeah, right.

Let alone the "promises" he made to your side that I'm HAPPY he hasn't kept, like DADT and GTMO.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

And for the claims that the bill was destroyed by the legislative process, the bill was already filled with special interests and handouts before it even got to Congress. Over the summer President Obama negotiated with pharmaceutical companies. The House bill included entitlements and programs for abortion providers, end of life care and other special interests.

A lot of the disdain, from Republicans, independents and many Democrats, were about why we were granting federal bureaucrats influence and control over those and many other private matters with our doctors.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

He promised to try. He tried. Democrats have done everything in their power to be bipartisan. Every time they have the no longer GOP has bit the hand. Alcoholics Anonymous defines insanity as "repetition of the same act with expectation of a different result." He fullfilled his promise the best he could. It's time to fullfill the promise of healthcare.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

You don't lose Massachusetts by being too liberal. You can lose any state in the union by going behind closed doors creating programs "for the people" that merely enrich unions, bureaucrats and special interests. That's not liberal, that's resembling communism. I hope, for the sake of the party, that Democrats realize the difference.

Americans want a free, open, and transparent government that serves their interests of the people, not a government that is only interested in its own growth and power.

Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


You asked why?


Because that is what Obama promised, and because that is what the American people voted for in 2008.

It is about time you grow up.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I was curious as to why no one wrote an article about the correlation between Massachusetts voters "rejecting the health care plan" by voting for Brown and the fact that Massachusetts already has universal health care (ironically because of Mitt Romney). For Martha Coakley to campaign for universal health care is like an insurance agent attempting to convince you to get a new auto insurance policy when you already satisfied with the one you already have.


Posted by: Jay20 | January 20, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Exit polls revealed that 52% of the voters were opposed to Obamacare. Obama can spout all he wants about the "weak" candidate, but he can't hide from the facts.

Posted by: mike85 | January 20, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

blert

Im not sure, the 17th amendment says that the Governor has to issue a writ of election to fill the remainer of the term.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

blert

Do you mean that the election would have been this coming November?

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Another, really - really bad day for the DEMOCRUDS.

Posted by: stephenwhelton | January 20, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Back to the topic, there is some credit to be doled out amidst the blame, as it looks like "joeyjoejoe" nailed the result last night almost perfectly for the Fix T-shirt -- I gave the "protest" Kennedy vote too much credence -- runners up were "armpeg" with 52.2 and "johnhinson" with 52.3 respectively):

"Brown 51.7
Coakley 47.0
Kennedy 1.3"

Posted by joeyjoejoe | January 19, 2010 5:04 PM (on prior thread)

CONGRATS!!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"In other words, if Democrats had not changed the law in 2004, there would have been no special election. Scott Brown never would have been able to run.

And if they'd not appointed someone temporarily in 2009, who knows how the health care debate would have shaped up? All we can be certain of is that it would have been different, and that might have changed the tone in this special election.

Posted by: blert"

Oh, ok. I see. I didn't know MA didn't have special elections prior to 2004. Thanks.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 20, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama but will be the first to admit he either uses bad judgement or gets bad advise. As president he should never have personally went on a multi-million dollar trip to try and bring the olympic games to Chicago. Also at a time when millions of people hardly have food to eat after only 11 months on the job he takes a multi-million dollar vacation and more or less rubs it into the face of the voters. Also several reports which have not been disputed by his adm. his wife has 22 people working as her maids and all other president's wifes have had one or two at the most. Will I vote for him again, {NOT LIKELY}

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | January 20, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

smc91:

That's what passes on the left as "logic".

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 12:30 PM |
----------------------
Apparently. To their peril.

Posted by: smc91 | January 20, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Think of politics as a square
>>>>>>>>>>>>

More like a circle. Meet me and comrade Obama around the other side as far away from capitalism as you can. you will know it when you pass by comrade Mao and Adolf on the way.

who took over state industries - Lenin, Mao, Hitler or Obama - all of the above.

who nationalized health care - Lenin, Mao, Hitler or Obama - all of the above.

Etc.

Posted by: drivl | January 20, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Bismon,
“Once an actual bill is passed, the lies and misinformation about what is in the bill can be settled. Just clearing the air on the bill's contents will go a long way towards soothing some of the anger in the populace that is based largely on misinformation and unrealistic expectations.”

Whose lies are you talking about? Both sides are lying on cost and dangers. Obama time and time again has said we need to bend the curve, but no where does he bend the curve down. It’s laughable to think congress will find hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cost controls (i.e., trust us…I think Bush used that same line just before we invaded Iraq). The R are no better in trying to scare older Americans about loss of coverage. Both sides have major constituents that have hindered any meaningful bipartisanship.

Almost all polls show a majority of American against the current health care legislation.
I will concede that few if any know the bill’s full contents and this includes both D and R, and I would also say many members of congress have no clue either (includes both D and R). But if D try and push their agenda on health care reform with simple majorities, there will be a major throw the bums out consensus (i.e., they are not listening).

I like the president and I agree with much of what David Brooks has said positive about him. However, I think he is disingenuous especially in this debate and I detest how the administration used the Post in quoting economist Gruber as an independent analysis when in actuality he was being paid by the administration. It was right out of the Bush playbook. I never did hear an outcry from the left of course the right was quiet when Bush did it as well….hmmmmm. Things don’t change all that much.

Posted by: sliowa1 | January 20, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The Barack Hussein Obama Presidency and Democratic Party are "In It's Last Throes"
and are all about to become as totally extinct as the dinosaurs on Election Days
2010 and 2012,with Impeachment of Obama
sure to follow after the Republicans regain
control of Congress in 2010 and the Voters
Elect Sarah Palin as President in 2012!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | January 20, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes I know who the brown-shirts were, and what their party was called. But the name not withstanding, they could not have been farther from socialist. Think of politics as a square: socialism is the left side, fascism (what the Nazi's were) is the right. anarchy would be the bottom, and totalitarianism is the top.
I think comparing anyone to Nazi's who are not actually Nazi's is in horrible taste, but if you're gonna do it, at least try not to mix polar opposites in your childish insults.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

smc91:

That's what passes on the left as "logic".

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD,

I think you are a little confused, either about the Massachusetts laws in senatorial succession or on what I said.

Prior to 2004, the Massachusetts governor simply appointed a senator to fill the remainder of the term.

In 2004, the Democrats in the legislature stripped the governor of this power and implemented a special election to be held within a set number of days.

In 2009, the legislature panicked at not having a second senator in Washington during the health care debates to give Senate Democrats that 60th vote, so they quickly amended the law to allow a temporary appointment until the special election.


In other words, if Democrats had not changed the law in 2004, there would have been no special election. Scott Brown never would have been able to run.

And if they'd not appointed someone temporarily in 2009, who knows how the health care debate would have shaped up? All we can be certain of is that it would have been different, and that might have changed the tone in this special election.

Posted by: blert | January 20, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

You'd think that our first Communist president Barack Obama and the Democrap Socialist's agenda to turn our country into a Socialist Communist Workers paradise was given a setback, with the defeat of his/their candidate Martha Coakley last night, but you'd be wrong.
The day after getting their a**es kicked in Mass., comes this news report from CNSNews and Drudge "Obama to Nationalize $103 billion Student Loan Industry with Pending Budget Bill".
Hugo Chavez is doing the same in Venezuela, as he's setting himself up as it's dictator for life, following in the footsteps of Fidel Castro in Communist Cuba.

Posted by: armpeg | January 20, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

...I think people are reading this wrong. People aren’t upset with the Democratic agenda. You don't lose Massachusetts by being too liberal. A liberal loses Massachusetts by being a wuss. We have sacrificed the spirit of our agenda to the false god of bipartisanship. If Dems take this as a stop sign, we will pay a far bigger price this fall.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 8:31 AM
-----------------------------
So if I understand you correctly, the people of Massachusetts punished the Democrats for not passing health-care reform fast enough? If so, why did they vote in a Republican who will make it that much more difficult to pass health-care reform and who explicitly campaigned against it? And how could Democrats in the Senate be advocating bipartisanship when the health-care bill is predicated on a 60-40 vote?

Posted by: smc91 | January 20, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I don’t get it. Brown shirts were a subsidiary of the Armpeg, what you called President obama with the "socialist, brown-shirt, etc..." would be like me calling someone a "big government anarchist" the names you called him are diametrically opposed to one another, and their traits could not possibly exist within the same person. I recomend a political science class. It should clear things up for you.
Posted by: elijah24
------------------------------------------
Brown shirts were part of the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party. The only thing that should be cleared up is that maybe brown shirts should be modernized into the “green shirts' to fit the current statist agenda.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."

_______________________

... and allow the blue dogs Dems to pull away from this Pelosi/Reid/Obama folly ... for their future careers!

Posted by: sally62 | January 20, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

In 1996, Mr. Clinton was the first Democrat to win re-election since FDR—expanding the electoral map once again into western, southern, and sunbelt states. He did so by creating a new ideological hybrid for a still-progressive Democratic Party: balanced-budget fiscal conservatism, cultural moderation, and liberal social programs administered by a "lean and mean government." This New Democrat combination appealed to Ross Perot independents concerned about deficits, and also to traditional Republican suburbanites who were culturally moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights but opposed to high taxes and wasteful, big-government bureaucracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
May his record stand for decades more.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bottom line: We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama—a party that is willing to meet half-way with conservatives and Republicans even if that means only step-by-step reforms on health care and other issues that do not necessarily involve big-government solutions.

That's what Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters were telling national Democrats yesterday. The question isn't just, will we listen? The question is, will we stop listening to the strident, purist base of our party who seem to prefer defeat to winning elections and no change at all if they don't get all the change they want.

Stay tuned.

Mr. Davis, a Washington, D.C., attorney and a weekly columnist for "The Hill" newspaper, was special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996-98
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WSJ today

See there are Libs out there who are not stupid. I found one.

Posted by: drivl | January 20, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse


I just hope they keep up their mindless blather about "communists" and other insults. The American people will laugh them to defeat.
Posted by: tmginnova
------------------------------------------
Obama, Van Jones, other assorted commie and mao admirers and czars. We’re not laughing.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Devotees turn on false prophets with a special vengeance. Obama is beginning to grate. His flip-the-switch-on, evangelical cadences at rallies sound more like a Harvard nerd doing blues imitations than Martin Luther King Jr. Purple-state presidents don’t appoint Van Joneses and Anita Dunns, or turn the NEA into a quid pro quo Ministry of Approved Culture. A healer doesn’t start in on the “rich,” “Wall Street,” the “big” oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies, or “fat-cat bankers” — especially when he has done his best to shake them all down for campaign money, hire as many of them as he can in his own administration, and arrange cut-rate loans, insider deals, bailouts, and guarantees for all of them.

Posted by: drivl | January 20, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

No politician quite gets a pass for deception and prevarication. Obama in his narcissism thought his sonorous rhetoric made him exempt from a “read my lips” or “I didn’t have sex with that woman” moment. It didn’t.

People heard his serial promises about airing the health-care debate on C-SPAN, his new-transparency/no-lobbyist vows, and his monotonous boasts to close down Guantanamo within a year. All that is now “inoperative.” The problem was not just that Obama made promises that he broke, but that he made them so frequently and so vehemently — and so cavalierly broke them. That brazen campaign deception is problematic for a politician, but proves fatal for a self-appointed messiah.


We went from a Republican “culture of corruption” to a liberal cesspool of corruption. Sen. Chris Dodd lectures Wall Street while he gets sweetheart loans and vacation-home deals. Few could make up a story that the nation’s top tax lawmaker, House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, is a tax dodger, and the nation’s top tax enforcer, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, is an even more egregious tax dodger. When the Democratic Senate leadership started buying health-care votes at $300 million a clip, our Congress became little more than the praetorian guard, auctioning off its support to any wannabe late Roman emperor. The idea of a muckraking Obama nominating Tom Daschle as his Health Secretary — the liberal populist who skips out of thousands of dollars in taxes on his free corporate limousine service — was the stuff of satire.


No one likes a serial whiner. It has been a year now — and Obama still blames George W. Bush ad nauseam. He did it in Massachusetts again — and on the eve of the election, no less. Blaming the past for the mistakes of the present gets old quickly. And when one adds in the constant What’s the Matter With Kansas? brand of condescension about naïve yokels not knowing what’s good for them, it gets even worse.

Yet Obama still pontificates that angry deluded voters will “suddenly” come to appreciate how he rammed health care down their otherwise ignorant throats: “The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn’t do things that people have been trying to say it does. . . . The worst fears will prove groundless. And the American people’s hope for a fair shake from their insurance companies — for quality, affordable health care they need — will finally be realized.”

Good luck with that, O philosopher king!

Posted by: drivl | January 20, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Armpeg, what you called President obama with the "socialist, brown-shirt, etc..." would be like me calling someone a "big government anarchist" the names you called him are diametrically opposed to one another, and their traits could not possibly exist within the same person. I recomend a political science class. It should clear things up for you.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"Share the blame even more widely. The 2004 state legislature deserves a big heap of blame for there being a special election at all. They didn't want to respect an election and the rule of law allowing a governor (Republican at that time, of course) to appoint a senator in the event of a vacancy. Jump forward a few years and we have a Democratic governor who could have appointed a Democrat to fill the rest of the term...except for that pesky 2004 law that now requires a special election.

Elections do have consequences, and laws do, too, and the Democrats in the state legislature ought to be mighty humbled right about now.

Posted by: blert"

Blert, I think you're wrong about this. From what I understand, the 2004 law took away appointment power from the governor in favor of a somewhat immediate special election, but no senator in the meantime. They actually changed the law in 2009 for the governor to appoint an interim senator before the special election. I think it's wrong to change the law based on whether the gov is D or R, but in both cases, you had a special election.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 20, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Voters are sick and tired of a terrible year of big spending and big deficits — especially the sight of Obama and his congressional allies almost daily talking breezily about spending what we do not have.

Voters went for the hope-and-change Obama in part because he promised fiscal sobriety after the Bush $500 billion deficit. Instead, in utterly cynical fashion, Obama trumped that red ink four times over. In the process, he developed a terrible habit of promising favored constituencies a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there as if it were all paper money — rather than real borrowed currency that will have to be confiscated in the future from the beleaguered taxpayer. It only makes it worse than the more the administration borrowed, printed, and spent, the higher unemployment rose and the lower economic activity plummeted.

Most have had enough of pie-in-the-sky talk of massive new health-care entitlements, cap-and-trade taxes and regulation, more stimulus, and more takeovers of private enterprise. The country is broke and the people want to pay off, not incur more, crushing debt. What got us into the mess was too much borrowing, skyrocketing debt, and reckless spending — not too many balanced budgets and too much lean government.

VDH

Posted by: drivl | January 20, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"One BIG MASS. Kick'in !!!"

The People have spoken !!!

Are you listening Dem's. ???

Posted by: thgirbla | January 20, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Sometimes someone can use a line or reasoning that is so out there...so far beyond the pale, that they deserve some recognition, tonight is one of those times. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who is chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, released a statement on the Massachusetts Special Election that fits in that category, it gets the award for the DUMBEST Democratic Party Spin off the Night. Rep Hollen's reason for Coakley's loss, you guessed it,George Bush;

Posted by: drivl | January 20, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Mass. voters for telling Obama and his Democrap Socialist Party brown shirt goons that their agenda to turn our country into a Socialist Communist Workers Paradise Police State isn't going to fly.
Things are looking up for Americans who believe in a government as our founding fathers gave us, and when they fight to keep it, as the Va, N.J., and now Mass. voters have done. Like Ben Franklin once said, when he was asked what kind of a government we have after the Constitutional Convention of 1787, 'A republic, if you can keep it'. By voting against Obama's and the Democrap Socialists candidate Coakley, the people of Mass. have turned back the Socialist Communist clique that wants to take away our uniqueness, our freedoms, and our republican form of government.
They'll probably try again, but for now the Obama Socialists and Communists have been given a setback.
Thank you to all freedom--loving Mass. voters who voted to keep our republic a republic, and a capitalist one that made us the richest, freest, most powerful country that has ever existed.

Posted by: armpeg | January 20, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Blert, see my 11:43 post.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I'm disappointed by the way the Fix has changed recently. Perhaps the reference to the Diane Rehm Show explains a lot of this. The blog does not seem to be the top priority.

I'm not seeing the most important number of the day, a conceit that may have been hard to execute but forced the Fix to go beyond conventional wisdom (most days) and "stretch" to offer something fresh and usually insightful.

And I'm not seeing the Winners and Losers, which normally would be available by this point in the day (thus the radio show issue), and was notable for the unexpected, non-obvious winners and losers, again something fresh and insightful.

These densely written numbered paragraphs, each of which could have been a more relaxed, playful individual blog post, feel like a crammed-together strategy memo and I don't find them as interesting (at all) to read.

Wish we could have the old Fix back. Please.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | January 20, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

theobserver4 wrote:

Democrats made the mistake of starting off with huge concessions. Bi-partisanship does not mean that whatever the minority parts asks for they get. It means that the agenda is set by the majority party and they work WITH that party to try to make it win win for all instead of being tailored to one side.

--------------------

That's funny. I'd say that bipartisanship doesn't mean that whatever the majority asks for they get, either. And, honestly, I didn't see much working together in good faith on these bills. I mean, what big concessions did Democrats actually make to Republicans? Democrats made a few minor concessions in the Finance Committee to win over Snowe's vote...and then undid those concessions on the Senate floor. They refused to include any Republicans in the room at all when drafting any of the bills. They refused even to consider tort reform.

In fact, the only concessions that Democrats have made so far has been to members of their own caucus. Democrats haven't tried to win over Republican votes because they thought that they didn't need to. It might have been better to leave Ted Kennedy's seat empty these last few months, forcing Senate Democrats to work with 59 votes, that to give them the illusion that they could ignore Republicans entirely.

But this one vote throws a lot of responsibility back on Republicans now. If Democrats make some significant concessions to Republicans in hopes of getting any version of health insurance reform passed, then Republicans are going to have to prove how genuine they are about bipartisanship. So far, Democrats haven't given Republicans that chance.

Posted by: blert | January 20, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

37th, your position is simply a denial of facts.
Exhibit A: The President, Speaker and Senate Majority Leader tried to work with Republicans. They cut the stim down to the point where it would nearly be ineffective to try to get any Republican support. Result: 1 Republican vote.
Exhibit B: They tried to work with the GOP on health-care. They cut the Single-payer system. They made the public option an opt-option in the House Bill which got not a single Reublican vote. Cut it out all together in the Senate Bill which got one Republican vote for cloture, but even she says she won't vote for final passage.
Exhibit C: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which only the most sexist of Americans opposed got only 3 Republican Votes.
Exhibit D: for the first time since the invention of the Video Camera, a Congressman (unfortunately, mine) walked out on the President's address to a joint session of congress, and another one shouted "you lie!" at him. Both were Republicans.
The vindictive and hateful behavior by the not so GOP toward this president has been disgraceful. If my party ever treated a new Republican president such disrespect, I would be ashamed. Why should Dems keep trying to be bipartisan in this climate?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

sliowa1 writes
"Look if the D in MA had not taken the right of the governor to select an interim senator none of what just happen would have occurred, but the arrogance of the D created their own problems. If the D try to pass health care with a simple majority in both houses of congress their will be a major revolt come November."


sliowa- I agree the MA Lege were fools to change the way replacement Senators are appointed, first back when Romney was Gov in anticipation of Kerry becoming POTUS, secondly to revert to the old rule last year, in anticipation of Kennedy's then-pending death.

However I disagree on the impact of passing health care reform in Nov. It is still an imperative for progress to be made on such reform. Once an actual bill is passed, the lies and misinformation about what is in the bill can be settled. Just clearing the air on the bill's contents will go a long way towards soothing some of the anger in the populace that is based largely on misinformation and unrealistic expectations.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 20, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Queen Nanny State Pelosi and the other statists have shut out the ideas and suggestions of Congressman Paul Ryan –R of WI. Time to start giving him and them consideration.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Share the blame even more widely. The 2004 state legislature deserves a big heap of blame for there being a special election at all. They didn't want to respect an election and the rule of law allowing a governor (Republican at that time, of course) to appoint a senator in the event of a vacancy. Jump forward a few years and we have a Democratic governor who could have appointed a Democrat to fill the rest of the term...except for that pesky 2004 law that now requires a special election.

Elections do have consequences, and laws do, too, and the Democrats in the state legislature ought to be mighty humbled right about now.

Posted by: blert | January 20, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"What you don't get is that this issue was settled last night."


One constituency sent one representative to Congress. That's all that was settled with yesterday's election. The people representing me in Congress today are the same ones that represented me yesterday, and I still expect them to do what they were elected to do.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 20, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The crazy right wing nuts are in a lather. Better get them their meds, quick!
I just hope they keep up their mindless blather about "communists" and other insults. The American people will laugh them to defeat.
The Republicans have no ideas. Just slogans (which give cover to the insurance companies, who love the fake populism of the Repubs).
Remember NY 23? Just as a bad candidate and local issues hurt the Dems in Mass, GOP overreaching to the tea party fools will lead to well-deserved defeat. Losers!

Posted by: tmginnova | January 20, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Not everyone. Just the party of NO

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


You are a complete laugh - you have set out to FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - AND YOU ONLY ENDED UP FOOLING YOURSELF.

You have deluded yourself - and I guess you are going to blame everyone else.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Democrats made the mistake of starting off with huge concessions. Bi-partisanship does not mean that whatever the minority parts asks for they get. It means that the agenda is set by the majority party and they work WITH that party to try to make it win win for all instead of being tailored to one side.

I find it amusing that Repubs didn't contribute anything outside of their narrow and unacceptable ideology and then claim that they were steam rolled when month after month the Dems kept watering the bill down to try and woo some Republican - ANY Republican to attempt to work for the citizens rather than their party bosses. As we all know by now not a single Republican stepped up and it led to unscrupulous and corrupt Democrats making the bill even worse.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 20, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"Still, the anger that I witness daily in my forwarded emails is largely generated by out-and-out lies. I received disrespectful emails about GWB, but the proportion of misrepresentations and lies was much lower. Will the instant culture of the internet actually destroy deliberative government? I wonder.

Posted by: mark_in_austin"

Well, the nation is going through one of its darkest periods in history with its worst economic collapse since the great depression.

And the minority party has decided to be completely obstructionist at every turn. Whether it be a stimulus bill or a health care bill, both of which will be good for the economy. The idea is to do what it takes to prolong the suffering since the nation will invariably blame the ruling party.

And hey, it seems to be working.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 20, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Yes compermise which means we get some of what we want too. As I said, what you're describing is called "submission."

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

JackD and Moonbat:


Would you please go over these calculations with me?


The stimulus bill was 787 Billion dollars.


If they created jobs at $30,000 a year each, that would be 26 MILLION jobs. So why didn't they do that?

The workforce is 150 million - with unemployment at 10% - that is 15 million people.


The could have put EVERYONE to work PLUS another 11 million people.

Instead, unemployment went UP.

Are my calculations wrong, or did we just get robbed ?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

This issue will be settled when there is health care for all Americans, and they show you that they love it. Even if this bill is dead (and it isn't) This fight will not end. We will fight for this until we win or die. and if we die first, the next generation will pick up the banner and march on. In the battle of the river and the rock, the river always wins; not by strength but by perservearence.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

All of the posts concerning scott Brown's victory written by people from outside of Massachusetts are laughable.
"All politics is local"...Tip O'Neill

The reason Coakley lost was simply that she did not campaign until two weeks ago.
She took voter support for granted, but if she had gone out and actually met with the voters she would have realized that we are pissed off about the unemployment rate(17% among blue collar workers), the arrogance of State House hacks and the taxes we pay to support those same hacks.

We already have mandatory health care laws in Massachusetts...it's called "Romneycare".

What the politicians don't seem to grasp is that, if a person has no job and can barely keep food on the table and pay the mortgage or rent, then health care is not affordable at any price.

So all of the Wingnuts, left and right, can hypothesize the meaning of this election all they want, but we here in Mass. know that the two main issues were jobs,jobs and more jobs.
Coakley didn't address those concerns, Brown did, end of story.

Posted by: jaxok2 | January 20, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


You are a complete LIAR


Obama made the commitment to bipartisanship during his campaign.

It is pretty simple - that commitment meant he wasn't going to get everything the democrats wanted - it meant there would be a COMPROMISE.

You don't get it.

Did you even turn on your television last night?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

No 37th, bipartisanship means not running over the opposition. It doesn't mean conceding to their every whim. It doesn't mean sacrificing the agenda. It means giving them a seat at the table, and letting them have a hand in shaping the bill so that it is as agreeable as possible.
What you are describing is called "submission."

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse


elijah24


What you don't get is that this issue was settled last night.


For some reason you think the issues of big government and massive taxes were settled in 2008.

It wasn't.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Nobody set out to fool America. There was no lack of intent. Things don't always go as planned. I suppose you think the Chargers didn't intend to go to the Super Bowl either, right?
There is an opposition party, who has made it their mission to prevent President Obama and all Democrats from fullfilling their plans. Failures are not the same as lies, and jobs not finished are not the same as failures.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Obama looked at the bipartisan negotiations and said "sorry guys, we won the election so we want everything that we want - we are not going to go toward the center."

===

Utter nonsense. Baucus worked with the gang of 6 throughout the summer, half of whom were Republicans. 2 of whom walked away of their own accord and 1 (Collins) voted to bring the bill out of committee. The fused bill was debated in the full Senate.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 20, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Where is broad____joe saying that Rasmussen is wrong ???

Broad___joe deserves to send an apology to the American people.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

O'Bama the Unwise, the Apologizer lost this election.

By choosing to campaign for her in her state, the ''teachable moment'' here is that O'Bama lost the election.

The Mass Election was a REFERENDUM on O'Bama and Democrat leadership.

''Teachable moments''.

Posted by: Accuracy | January 20, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Elijah


Bipartisanship means you are going to sit down and negotiate an agreement that everyone can agree to.


That means compromise, not demanding everything that your side wants.

Obama looked at the bipartisan negotiations and said "sorry guys, we won the election so we want everything that we want - we are not going to go toward the center."


That was OBAMA - he went back on his pledge.

This is just my point - YOU HAVE BEEN FOOLING YOURSELF.


YOU THOUGHT YOU FOOLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT YOU REALLY JUST FOOLED YOURSELF.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

If the GOP doesn't make the agreement, there is no agreement. Obama did everything he could. Far more than he should have, IMHO. And you will take any excuse to demand his resignation.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

the WH and DNC should do what happened on "West Wing" after the mid-terms. Let Obama be Obama.

Posted by: katem1 | January 20, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Hey, media, Martha did not run a bad campaign. Larry King saw right through that spin. But, hey, you're on the wrong side of this political movement, right? You don't get it, and haven't for a long time, but I digress.

Scott Brown, let's take back our gov't (and our money!)

Oh, and yeah, a big shout out to the great citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You came through at the start of our great country and you came through again now.

Posted by: deeman | January 20, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


"The democrats set out to fool the American people."

Yes - if you run on a platform that you do not have intentions of fulfilling.


There is a massive disconnect between what Obama promised and his delivery.


Sorry, you are deluding yourself.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

He did make that promise, 37th. Problem is that bipartisanship is a bilateral agreement. When only one side is trying to be bipartisan, there is no bipartisanship. If that is the case (as it currently is) it is time to cut our losses and stop trying.

Posted by: elijah24

___________________________________-

EXACTLY ELIJAH IT IS A BILATERAL AGREEMENT WHICH OBAMA MADE WITH THE VOTERS


Obama made the commitment.


The Voters voted for him.


If Obama (and you) don't like the bilateral agreement, Obama should RESIGN.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

According to the Harvard School of Public Health 45,000 Americans die every year from lacking health insurance. That's 122 per day. Where are the Scott Brown's Zouk's and Jake D's of this world who put some clump of cells in a petrie dish over human beings.

BTW Where is his critique of Romney Care which is quite similar to both the Senate bill or a Nixon Wilber Mills bill from 1974.

Posted by: MerrillFrank
-----------------------------------------
How many die in the liberal controlled plantations of the central cities thru violence caused by the dysfunction of lifetime liberal government dependence ?

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

After losing three major elections in a row, a thinking person would issue a course correction to avoid future failure.

Since liberals are not all thinking people, especially several on this thread, we can expect further erosion in democrat numbers. I foretell many retirements in the near future and a vacant recruiting effort.

How embarassing will it be to lose a senate seat from the present ident and vp's home state.

There are at least 76 dem house members who are now goners.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 20, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

magnoliabel and jaked: what part of not bringing up that birther absurdity on this post do you two not get? jaked, you are always so gleeful when you think other commentors are breaking the rules... get over yourself and get on topic. Or do you live in the district of Nathan Deal, GOP congressman who sent the WH a letter demanding the Prez's BC.?

Posted by: katem1 | January 20, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"A vote for racial harmony is not a vote for your massive government programs, new taxes or for releasing terrorists who 18 year old kids gave their lives to catch."
==
While Barack Obamas election could cynically be reduced to a vote for racial harmony, but most of the senators and congressmen elected last november were not minorities. To reduce the entire electoral beat down that my party issued to yours in '08, to a race issue, is to willfully ignore facts.

"The democrats set out to fool American."
==
Do you think our whole party meets in a little club to plan and scheme to fool everyone? It's true we do. In fact, our next vote will be to change our name back to our original name: Illuminati.
(the claim above should not be taken seriously. I use sarcasm to demonstrate the idiocy of the implication that led to this claim)

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Bismon,

‘I do agree with the commenters that note the Dems still hold comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress & should impose majority rule. Elections have consequences, as they say.”

And so does stupidity. Look if the D in MA had not taken the right of the governor to select an interim senator none of what just happen would have occurred, but the arrogance of the D created their own problems. If the D try to pass health care with a simple majority in both houses of congress their will be a major revolt come November. I would also say that neither side including the President have bent over backwards working with each other. However, I would concede that the R are more egregious in this partisan spat.

Posted by: sliowa1 | January 20, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama should now realize that he needs to learn to govern, become a man of his word, and not have his bobble head stuck in front of a news camera every day. He should begin by getting rid if the left-wing wackos in his administration.

Posted by: mpixton1 | January 20, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama should now realize that he needs to learn to govern, become a man of his word, and not have his bobble head stuck in front of a news camera every day. He should begin by getting rid if the left-wing wackos in his administration.

Posted by: mpixton1 | January 20, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama should now realize that he needs to learn to govern, become a man of his word, and not have his bobble head stuck in front of a news camera every day. He should begin by getting rid if the left-wing wackos in his administration.

Posted by: mpixton1 | January 20, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed that the Democrats still have 59 votes in the Senate? They should pound away at the American people that this is still a democracy and a majority should rule. Keep putting the bill up and let the Republican filibuster.

Posted by: fulrich
------------------------------------------
Actually the American form of government is a republic with representation outlined in the constitution. You guys and Al Gore also did not understand the concept of the electoral college.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

He did make that promise, 37th. Problem is that bipartisanship is a bilateral agreement. When only one side is trying to be bipartisan, there is no bipartisanship. If that is the case (as it currently is) it is time to cut our losses and stop trying.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Of course, it's all on the D(o)uchebaggers. Like Nancy said: “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.”

Posted by: magellan1 | January 20, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

FH,

‘I think GOP'rs would be mistaken to see this as anything more than a correction from the people, back to the center.’

I totally agree with FH statement and as always Mark in Austin is always astute with his insightful commentary.

I would point out that one of the big winners here is the host Chris Cillizza who was lambasted by many on this blog for predicting a possible Brown victory. How many said he was a mouth piece of the right with a secret agenda. He has been vilified time and again by both the left and right who do not like hearing the truth. He has been way a head of the curve in watching the mood of the country change and noting it. He was denigrated in 2006 when the R on this blog found fault in his analysis and now lately it has been the left who have belittle his assessments. Both sides need to grow-up and actually listen rather than talking in their echo chambers.

In Iowa, I do not think Culver will retire regardless of his standing. I think he is too young and dumb to see his challenges (I am close to his same age). His youthfulness makes him believe he is invincible. He had easy go of it in his early political offices and he used his family’s clout to win the D nomination in 2006 (Vilsak pick to succeed him was Blouin). He promised a lot during his governor run when the economy was doing well. However, as the economy started to sputtered he was slow to respond and he was forced to make draconian cuts in mid year due to the overly optimistic revenue projections (he was warned and he ignored). He has taken little leadership in directing the state and has basically given leadership to the Iowa General Assembly. With that said, a lot can happen in 10 months and Branstad may not be as an effective candidate the second around since the rules and media have changed (hopefully he is update since he was the president of Des Monies University).

Posted by: sliowa1 | January 20, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

According to the Harvard School of Public Health 45,000 Americans die every year from lacking health insurance. That's 122 per day. Where are the Scott Brown's Zouk's and Jake D's of this world who put some clump of cells in a petrie dish over human beings.

BTW Where is his critique of Romney Care which is quite similar to both the Senate bill or a Nixon Wilber Mills bill from 1974.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | January 20, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

"When Obama saw that he had 60 votes, he couldn't resist breaking his promise."


More nonsense. The President has bent over backwards trying to work with the GOP and has received nothing in return.

I do agree with the commenters that note the Dems still hold comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress & should impose majority rule. Elections have consequences, as they say.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 20, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 writes
"Liberalism is what got us the majority in the first place. We should quit apologizing for it."


________________________

You are completely delusional.

A vote for racial harmony is not a vote for your massive government programs, new taxes or for releasing terrorists who 18 year old kids gave their lives to catch.

You simple DO NOT GET IT.

The democrats set out to fool American.


And the democrats ended up fooling themselves.


-------that when they fooled America the first time that their votes actually meant something those votes did not.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

elijah, I don't dispute anything in your 9:54 post. Your examples are accurate, yet the GOP are winning with a message of no taxes, no borrowing and no benefit cuts. Exposing that platform for the fraud it is should be the first order of business for the Dems.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 20, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

BLAME LOCAL MASS. DEMS: DIDN'T THEY KNOW COAKLEY WAS A DUD?

All the MA Dems had to do was run a Kennedy, either of Teddy's sons, or Joe, and this seat would have stayed blue. This dynasty deserved to be preserved, and the locals should have known they were getting an aloof, elitist, politically inept candidate in Martha Coakley. Who was running the inside game on the selection process? That's where the finger-pointing should start.

***

OBAMA FIRST YEAR FAILURE: FAITH IN GOV'T, RULE OF LAW UNRESTORED.

• When Will Team Obama Take Down the Nationwide Extrajudicial Gestapo Run by Bush-Cheney "Leave-Behinds?"

• Now It's Obama's "Gestapo USA." And it's targeting his presidency along with thousands of unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans and their families.

See: Poynter.org (Journalism Groups -- Reporting):

• "U.S. Silently Tortures Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves"
• "Gestapo USA: Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"
• "U.S. Uses CBS News to Cover Up Microwave Cell Tower Torture?"

http://www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 OR:
http://NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 20, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed that the Democrats still have 59 votes in the Senate? They should pound away at the American people that this is still a democracy and a majority should rule. Keep putting the bill up and let the Republican filibuster.

Posted by: fulrich | January 20, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed that the Democrats still have 59 votes in the Senate? They should pound away at the American people that this is still a democracy and a majority should rule. Keep putting the bill up and let the Republican filibuster.

Posted by: fulrich | January 20, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Don't blame me, Jimah Carville, I done predicted over 40 weeks of liberal ascendancy and I was right.

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


Your guy Obama PROMISED bipartisanship during the election last year - he was elected with that commitment. The American people have been defrauded by Obama on this issue.


When Obama saw that he had 60 votes, he couldn't resist breaking his promise.

The message is clear: No one can trust Obama -

AND listen to you today.

Funny how the bluest of blue states wants Obama to adhere to his campaign promises - and they are willing to force him to do it.

AS OPPOSED to Obama forcing his idea of health care on people.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 writes
"Liberalism is what got us the majority in the first place. We should quit apologizing for it."

Again, partial agreement, partial disagreement: I agree that liberals should stop apologizing for liberalism. However it is not solely liberalism that won the Dems the majority - you also owe a great deal to Republican incompetence.

That is the lesson the Dems aren't learning. There needs to be a rational national dialogue about what it takes to run the government. In the interviews I've heard, voters are mad at 1) tax rates (which is bizarre, given that there as low as they've been in almost all Americans' lifetimes); 2) deficit spending; 3) fear of losing social security / medicare benefits. The problem is, you can't solve all those problems at the same time. Republicans have been promising something for nothing for so long that voters seem to think the promise can be delivered. But it is impossible to cut taxes while ending borrowing and not cutting any programs. That is what Dems need to run on: being up front about what it takes to deliver the services our citizens expect.

The bitter irony is that Scott Brown, et al, are promising the same nonsense that the Bush admin & GOP gave us from 2000 to 2008, and calling it 'change'. The people that are buying into that are clearly incapable of rational thought.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 20, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Would you care to elaborate, 37th?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1


You really don't have to call it nonsense in order to end the discussion.


What you need to do is tell Obama to authorize the release the underlying documents in the file in Hawaii.

Obama hiding those papers, and his college transcripts, is fueling the discussion more than anything.


Your nastiness should be reserved for Obama.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon, let me be clear: I think bipartisanship is good under normal circmustances. If both sides are willing to negotiate in good faith. If the minority will accept that the people chose to give the power to their opponents and will negotiate for the purpose of making the bill as good as they can; and the majority will accept that while the people chose to give them the power, they did not give them absolute power, and will negotiate accordingly; under these circumstances, bipartisanship is good. These are not the circumstances we have today. The GOP has done nothing but obstruct. They have abused the fillibuster. They have acted like petulent children. If the child is throwing a fit, and you give him the candy, he will learn that when he wants something he can get it by throwing a fit. The GOP has learned this too. It's time to let them cry.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Democrats need to get their stuff together and stop the blame game.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | January 20, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

So the D(o)uchebaggers think this was all about the lack of money, lack of will, and lack of interest on the part of Coakley. They also seem to believe that she wasn't a very good candidate and that she took the people of Massachusetts for granted.

Good, let's hope the D(o)uchebags continue to pull the wool over their own eyes, stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that everything is all right with their message and agenda. They seem to need another wake up call.

Posted by: magellan1 | January 20, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


You have got to be completely delusional.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Gee, who would have thought our woefully unqualified president would finally be told "no" by anyone?

Arrogance, ignorance, corruption and general incompetence are the brand the White House is selling and people are no longer buying, no matter how much the media wants to help.

Posted by: NoDonkey | January 20, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

THE PEOPLE have spoken. Lies, special favors, record deficits, and a radical agenda will not be tolerated. Let's see who gets the message and who still drinks the media Kool-Aid

Posted by: greendayer | January 20, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

JakeD writes
"Too bad you think it's impossible that a non "natural born" citizen was elected President. There have actually been bigger frauds than that perpetrated through history."


Jake, our gracious host has asked you not to post your birther nonsense here & to instead remain on topic. Please follow the rules, lest you be banned.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 20, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The buck stops where?

Posted by: leapin | January 20, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Good post, as usual, by mark in austin at 7:37.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 20, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Jake, if this were Sherrod Brown, or Karl Levin, or some other long standing Senator from a purple state, I would say we should slow down. But in one of the bluest of the blue states, the only way to lose is to anger the liberals. People arent mad about the agenda. They are mad because it isn't being pursued with enough conviction. They are angry that we pandered to Republicans who had no interest in negotiating. All for the illusion of bipartisanship. Enough with illusions. We should be who we are. Liberalism is what got us the majority in the first place. We should quit apologizing for it.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 writes
"People aren’t upset with the Democratic agenda. You don't lose Massachusetts by being too liberal. A liberal loses Massachusetts by being a wuss. We have sacrificed the spirit of our agenda to the false god of bipartisanship."

I generally agree, excepting the last sentence. I don't think the attempts at bipartisanship are a mistake. I do think the rebuttal to the critics' claims has been poor to nonexistent. The level of misunderstanding and misinformation about hte healthcare bill is astronomical & the Dems have done a very poor job of addressing outright falsehoods on the part of critics.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 20, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The other thing to remember here is this special election process started with the Massachusetts legislature changing the law to permit an interim appointment.


This is after they changed the law in 2004 - so they changed it back.


This sort of manipulation does NOT sit well with the voters - in a way, the democrats played games to get the 60 votes to begin with - and the people saw an opportunity to take it away from them.


THEN on top of it, there were all sorts of statements in the press that the democrats were going to delay certification - effectively extending the term of Kirk who some thought was not fully legit to begin with.


All these things do not help - the democrats are mismanaging Washington - the people say to themselves, if they can not manage their own affairs properly, then how can they manage the government?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The Massachusetts special senate election is historic. Scott Brown is the first nude naked centerfold dude in the US Senate! Nudists finally have representation in the world's greatest deliberative body! Before I feel good about Brown I do still need proof that he isn't using the social security number of a dead person in Connecticut--I've heard this from pretty good sources--but I am thrilled for exhibitionists everywhere.

Posted by: Steve62 | January 20, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Elijah:

Like I said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake".

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Why on earth is everyone so concerned about not having 60 democratic seats in the US Senate? Don't people understand that republicans can play nice in the sandbox and compromise just like democrats did for eight years when "W" was president?

Okay, coming out of my parallel universe now and feeling anything but hopeful...

Posted by: mcquoidlake | January 20, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Another poster on the other thread mentions a really good point - Coakley was having a great deal of trouble with her television commercials.


This poster says he was from Boston -


And he mentions the mispelled Massachusetts ad - then the "what can Brown do for you" - which apparently led to threatened lawsuits.


Now this is the attorney general of the commonwealth being threatened with lawsuits on her commercials.

Then apparently she went to nasty attack ads. Classic case of failure to define herself - not that there was much to define to begin with and maybe that was part of the problem - does she know who she is beyond putting some agenda into place?


The point the poster was making:


The Coakley campaign was showing some basic incompetence in placing up their ads - she did not look like she knew what she was doing.

You know what? This is all pile-on.


The decisive factor is Obama - the American people do not want his agenda.


A vote for racial harmony was not a vote for Obama to create a massive government program or to impose new taxes.


The democrats set out to fool America and they ended up fooling themselves about what last year's election meant.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

JakeD must want Obama to be president for two terms. There's no other reason he'd be calling for a Palin-Brown GOP ticket in 2012.

Palin-Brown. LOL

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 20, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Along with the rest of the nation, citizens of Mass. are fed up with this administration’s dictatorship.
Instead of doing the will of the people they have taken it upon themselves to push their personal agendas, which in this case is socialism. Nancy Pelosi has said that it doesn't matter what the people want, she is going to pass health reform regardless.
She along with the wealthy in Washington have their own insurance while everyone else is forced on welfare. That is degrading to the American people. We have the best health care in the world and we are paying for it. For those who can’t there is welfare.

Posted by: bonniewheeler | January 20, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

First Jake, I think it is in remarkably bad taste to use the earthquake metaphor in light of recent events. Haiti, who apparently hadn't had enough already, got hit again with a 6.1 aftershock yesterday. I'm not saying you were trying to invoke this particular imagery. I don't know. But maybe you could pick catastrophic imagery that is a bit less recent.
2nd, No answer is easy. And of course much of the bill will have to be cut out. Still, much of it can be passed through reconciliation and that is what we should do.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

elijah24 and the democrats


I don't think you understand what is involved in reconcilation - that is reserved for budgetary items only -


So when you say "reconcilation" you are saying to strip out all the provisions of the health care bill that have nothing do with the budget, and pass that budgetary items with 51 votes.


Then the idea is to slowly slip in the other provisions of the 2,000 page health care bill and get them passed somehow through other legislation.


It sort of takes away all the compromises - and the cooperation required of everyone is not really practical.


I think that word has been thrown around and people simply not understand the rules under which reconcilation has to take place - it is only budgetary.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

elijah24:

You do realize that every non-budgetary sentence from the House bill is arguably not subject to the reconciliation process, right? Robert Byrd (D-WV) is already on the record that Hillarycare wasn't. The only "easy" way out is passing the Senate bill in the House (assuming Hoyer and Pelosi can find enough votes after last night political earthquake ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Obama was on vacation in Hawaii - and he severly missed an opportunity to appear strong on terrorism - instead all the holes in his terror polices came together at once


Janet Napolitano - looking like a deer in headlights at a news conference did not help.


Obama releasing terrorists from Gitmo to Yemen did not help.


There is a reason they have the phrase "No Confidence."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

something's been stinking and obama has been blaming the dog. after MA, he can't dodge this stink no more.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 20, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

something's been stinking and obama has been blaming the dog. after MA, he can;t dodge this stink no more.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 20, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Have you ever heard the saying "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"?

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

No, Jake. Thats why I don't think we should pass the Senate bill. I think we should put the House bill into reconciliation. We're gonna take a hitt politically from both sides, no matter what we do. So let's take a hit passing the best bill possible.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

JakeD


When the attitude among the democrats gets to be "let's pass it at any cost and we don't care what it looks like" - there is a serious, serious problem.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama has done little to sell his SOFT APPROACH ON TERRORISM to the American people - in fact it almost appears as if he has been implementing these policies under the radar.


For example - the decisions to close Gitmo and hold the trials in the US have been relegated to the Attorney General, the Illinois prision transfers have been found out through release of documents from the Pentagon, and the decisions and there have been leaked memos about dropping the words "war on terror."

Obama has not stood up for these actions - and they haven't even come from the White House - it is all leaked memos and even some of this information has been leaked when Obama is out of the country.

So - during when Obama was on the golf course in Hawaii there was a slow realization that Obama has been soft on terorism -

At exactly the point it appeared that Obama was staying on the golf course and ignoring the situation with the Detroit bomber

People in Massachusetts reacted to that.

This election was not just about the health care bill - I am amazed that the democrats are making statements today that they do NOT want to listen to the voters of the bluest of blue states.


That is telling.


These statements go right to the problem with Obama.


The democrats in Washington would rather continue the nasty name-calling than actually listen to the voters.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Do you think it's "fair" that my healthcare plan gets taxed 40% but the exactly same healthcare plan for a UNION member doesn't? Or, the entire State of Nebraska is exempted from the rise in Medicare costs? That sounds like a double standard to me.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

This election where Scott Brown didn't just win but pummeled his Democratic opposition in liberal Massachusetts was sweet to be sure. As the wailing and moaning of liberals all across the country was music to my ears. But this is just the appetizer before the main course of the upcoming mid term elections. As the race in Massachusetts shows the Republicans are going to eat heartily come November.

Lastly all of you liberals out there who say this race has nothing to do with opposition to Obamacare. I say you are full of BS. Scott Brown ran the entire race saying explicitly that he would be the 41st vote against Obamacare and he killed his Democratic opponent who said she would vot in favor of Obamacare. I don't know how much more of referendum you can possibly get on Democratic healthcare "reform".

Posted by: RobT1 | January 20, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

gss49:

Please tell us more. You think that the House of Representives should simply pass the Senate version in toto?

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

"Massachusetts can have the seat back because Brown will be PRESIDENT of the Senate in exactly three (3) years from today. "
==
He might as well be. He sure won’t keep his seat. Still, I think people are reading this wrong. People aren’t upset with the Democratic agenda. You don't lose Massachusetts by being too liberal. A liberal loses Massachusetts by being a wuss. We have sacrificed the spirit of our agenda to the false god of bipartisanship. If Dems take this as a stop sign, we will pay a far bigger price this fall.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 20, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

America voted for Obama because he promised to be bipartisan


What did Obama do? At the first chance, he found he had 60 votes in the Senate and he abandoned his own bipartisan, post-partisan pledge.

Clearly, the American people have realized this has been a complete joke on the part of Obama - and now Obama has only himself to blame - anyone who wants to blame Coakley is well you pick your name.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Many of these democratic comments, and some of the comments coming out of the White House - basically confirms how OUT OF TOUCH Obama and the democrats are.


If you want to be shocked, listen to the democrats today.

It is called REALITY - the democrats have lost complete sight of the idea that they are in Washington to do the work of the people, not to jam their ideas on the American people who do not agree with them.

Take a look at this past year.

All we have from the democrats is name-calling and arrogance.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 20, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Everyone seems to think health care needs some reform, it needs to cost less. There is only one way to lower the costs, and that is with a single payer system. Eventually, it will happen. It will not be long before insurance is dropped by businesses who can no longer afford it. When the pain hits enough of suburbia, then the lies will no longer work and reform will happen.

Posted by: gss49 | January 20, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

"It's time to turn off FOX news and Rush Limbaugh and work your brain for a change."

...with the thoughts I'd be thinkin' I could be another Lincoln if I only had a brain.

Oh I could tell you why
the ocean meets the shore

I could think of things I never thought
before...


Posted by: shrink2 | January 20, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Brown's win is not about thew need for Obama to "adjust" his agenda. It is a sign that the White House and Democrats need to do a better job of defining the GOP and in selling their own message.

A loss by a remarkably bad candidate who received historically bad advice (namely to not campaign for election) must be judged carefully.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 20, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

egc52556:

Massachusetts can have the seat back because Brown will be PRESIDENT of the Senate in exactly three (3) years from today.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

andyr3: "Michael Capuano who will most definitely run against Brown in 2012"

Good point. Brown will have only 2 years, not 6.

Posted by: egc52556 | January 20, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

well now what.? obama is going to get up there at the state of the union and outline some grand plan that is dead on arrival as long as 41 is the number and it is allowed to disrupt our agenda. harry reid and nancy pelosi are going to have to come out and say that it's still our turn at bat. if they get all wussy about it we're dead. what this anger is all about is at it very core a failure of leadership to set the agenda, control the message and push the levers of power. the people see that and that's why they are pissed. lead damn it. if i'm harry reid i tell every one of thos sob's this is the plan and if you don't get on board then you can forget any earmark or special project in your state. i wouldn't give em as much as a glass of water unless they fell in line. you think lyndon johnson when he was in the senate would have put up with this? or sam rayburn? tom delay? please. boldness, hardball and a FU attitude is what is needed now. forget working with the republicans, that's dead. been dead from day one, we just were hoping we were wrong. it's time for obama to get up there at the state of the union and lay it out, lay it out strong, mad as hell and determined to win or go down in flames. the public wants, indeed cries out for strenght. either we give it to them or the other side will. btw- BIG LOSER yesterday..Joe LIeberman strip him of his posts and tell him rejoin democrats or go away

Posted by: dem4evr | January 20, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

HOW IS IT THE OBAMA ADMIN IS BLAMING COAKLEY's LOSS ON A SHODDY CAMPAIGN?

As far as I know. Coakley's campaign slogan was: "A different kind of leader".

During Browns victory speeech however, the crowd broke into spontaneous rounds of "Yes we can" three seperate times. Could they have made any more of a glaring indictment?

Yet, so far the denial in Obama's camp remains. It was this same type of denial that led to this smackdown in the first place. So evidently, despite promises, nothing has or will change.

The implication then, seems simple. It is easy to feign strength of character when you're winning. It is quite another matter to show it in defeat.

So far, the President by allowing, if not insisting that Coakly take the rap has shown he has none. When in fact, it was he who stuck the knife in her back when he said: "Forget the truck...everybody can buy a truck." To which, Mass. emphatically answered; Mr. President, NO WE CAN'T!

Posted by: artyanimal2 | January 20, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Watching the liberals come unhinged and lash out at each other is a sweet sight to behold. Boston Tea Party 2010 is only beginning. The best is yet to come.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 20, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

blueberi:

Too bad you think it's impossible that a non "natural born" citizen was elected President. There have actually been bigger frauds than that perpetrated through history.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

.
.
.
As Republicans celebrate, let's look at what they are celebrating: the power of the minority (41%) to override the desire of the majority (59%); the power to filibuster and delay; the power to block health care to millions of Americans who have none; the power to sit on their hands.

Congratulations GOP. You have the power to keep acting in the best interests of your party instead of the best interests of America.
.
.
.

Posted by: egc52556 | January 20, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

The problem with this nation is that there are too many ignorant people.... Obama and the "dead person's SS #"? I cannot comprehend it...I really can't. It's time to turn off FOX news and Rush Limbaugh and work your brain for a change.

Posted by: blueberi | January 20, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

First time I've commented on "the fix" in about 2 years, but the thought of an "R" senator from Mass...wow!

Look, Americans don't like 1 party rule. We like gridlock, and more important...compromise, and so did our founders. Watching the healthcare non-debate has pissed off many Independant voters, and it showed last night.

I think GOP'rs would be mistaken to see this as anything more than a correction from the people, back to the center.

Posted by: FH1231 | January 20, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!! CHAPPAQUIDDICK IS TURNING IN HIS GRAVE!! EVERYONE HAVE A BEER ON ME!!

Posted by: tjhall1 | January 20, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

I can remember when D partisans argued here that it would be 2024 before the Rs regrouped from 2008. I suggested that the typical attitude of triumphalism by partisans - so insufferable to the other half of the voters regardless of the party - assures more rapid turnarounds.

Humility is a better sell for maintaining a victory edge.

Andy, Ds might learn from this if they do not circle and fire inward. I have low expectations for them. Thus BHO's presidency will probably become a foreign policy one, as was GHWB's for the coming year. A deadlocked Congress will not do much in the way of domestic policy. If the economy recovers on its own the Rs will say it did not need intervention and they were correct. If it does not, the Rs will blame the majority. The Prez will be forced to run against Congress. I have seen this before.

Attacking the budget holes in the entitlements through an independent base closing type commission should have been the second order of business after spending us out of an immediate depression. Doing both at once would have signaled a serious commitment to long term budget reform while running up short term deficits. Those of you who have been here since 2007 know I have been consistent in this.

Still, the anger that I witness daily in my forwarded emails is largely generated by out-and-out lies. I received disrespectful emails about GWB, but the proportion of misrepresentations and lies was much lower. Will the instant culture of the internet actually destroy deliberative government? I wonder.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 20, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Massachusetts has state wide health care coverage...it is obvious that the residents of MA reject Obamacare in its present form, they reject other agendas of the WH and the Democratic Majority. No one likes the idea that Congress is slamming bills (many unread) down our throats. It is ridiculous to think that Americans would applaud passing of legislation that would affect all us of for years to come. Health Care reform is needed - REFORM - not overhaul. Slow down, take the deals off the table, and do it right

Posted by: saffy197 | January 20, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

magnoliabel:

The truth will come out, don't worry.

AndyR3:

No.

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

As someone who would benefit equally from both the defeat and the passage of the great health care industry force-feed, the money stuffing rule package of 2009...

I think we can all agree now that Democrats better just push away from that table. Pretend you were never there. Start over and lets have a talk about reforming health care.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 20, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Jake, the Obama and the Democrats keep breaking our Constitution and they want to change it to fit their need...not the needs of the America people. How much longer are we going to be a free people when judges won't hear the people vs Obama's case in court? This is a valid case and the Constitution is being destoyed everyday by these Democrats for their own greed, power and control at the taxpayers expense.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 7:02 AM | Report abuse

Jake, the Obama and the Democrats keep breaking our Constitution and they want to change it to fit their need...not the needs of the America people. How much longer are we going to be a free people when judges won't hear the people vs Obama's case in court? This is a valid case and our Constitution is being destoyed everyday by these Democrats for their own greed.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 7:01 AM | Report abuse

Jake, the Obama and the Democrats keep breaking our Constitution and they want to change it to fit their need...not the needs of the America people. How much longer are we going to be a free people when judges won't hear the people vs Obama's case in court? This is a valid case and our Constitution is being destoyed.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

This is the day the debt stopped rising, the global warming fraud exposed, the health care fiasco halted.

Obama may have parted the seas but now seems engulfed by failure.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 20, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

Jake D, yes, Orly Taizt, the birther attorney, has admitted it into evidence this information in her lawsuit against Obama. There are 36 -39 more social security numbers they are investigating that they think he has used some of those also. Obama is not a legal citizen in my opinion. He has been a British, Indonesian and Kenya citizen and she can prove this in her lawsuit. US judges are being either paid off or scared off from this suit.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Jake, most people thought that a high turnout would favor the Democrats, but as you point out it seems that this is not the case.
My question to you is do you as a conservative worry at all that this wave may have peaked too early?

CC, I know you are making a winners and loser list for last night's election. I want to suggest two winners 1) Michael Capuano who will most definitly run against Brown in 2012, and IMO will take the seat back for the Democrats. 2)Marco Rubio in Florida's senate primary. I think the Tea-party activists will take this victory and use it to go after what they see as RINOs all over the country, and Rubio will be their poster boy.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 20, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic party had a leader with a 50 state strategy that brought them to a majority in both houses of congress, After the last election they immediately dismissed that leader. They turned their backs on the voters and started raking in the health care industry cash and now the voters have made a comment on their current leadership. If they still can't remember why they were elected expect more of the same in the fall.

Posted by: vwallen@bellatlantic.net | January 20, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

I had NOT heard that Obama is using a dead persons social security number from Connecticut ...

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 6:49 AM | Report abuse

I fine it ironic that the Democrats dismiss the birthers too just like they did the teaparty members. Why has Obama spent one and a half million dollars to fight not to show his records? The media is also paying for what they have done to hide this. People and what took place and they will not forget.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 6:49 AM | Report abuse

I fine it ironic that the Democrats dismiss the birthers too just like they did the teaparty member. Why is Obama spending one and a half million so far fighting not to show his records? The media is also paying for what they have done to hide this. People will not forget.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

I have mixed emotions today, First as a democrat I am angry that our party can't see the fact that they need to PASS healthcare reform without a public option (ie the Senate Bill) and get it done with. It has already claimed a senate seat in Mass because it has lingered so long.
Secondly, as an American I am depressed since now the rest of the President's agenda (climate reform, banking reform, etc) will be stalled in its tracks.
Lastly, as a former resident of Massachusetts I am shocked with some of the things I am hearing on the news. I heard one demcrat who said "I voted for Obama cause I wanted change, and that is also why I am voting for Brown." What???

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 20, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Turnout was projected at 1.6 million to 2.2 million. They actually got more than 2.2 million (not including all absentee ballots). Comparing this special election to the last presidential election in Massachusetts, Brown received at least 60,000 more votes than McCain did in 2008. Coakley received 800,000 fewer votes than Obama did. SOMEONE at the White House can do simple math, right? Exit polling, of course, showed that Obamacare was the number one issue (so let's see if they simply admit it or not, even Bush did in 2006 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 20, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse


The American people also know that Obama uses a dead persons social security number from Connecticut and most likely is not even a legal sitting president. The people know that DNC lied about vetting Obama so how could they trust these Communist.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM | Report abuse

The American people also know that Obama uses a dead persons social security number from Connecticut and most liking is not even a legal sitting president. The people know that DNC lied about vetting Obama so how could they trust these Communist.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 6:44 AM | Report abuse

Wow a lame duck president after one short year? And much of it is self inflicted to boot!

Stunning. Just stunning.

Posted by: barrylarryandtimmy | January 20, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

When the Democrats paid bailout money to bankster and automobsters their fate was sealed. Now, the American people regardless of party will throw these Communist Democrats under a moving train.

Posted by: magnoliabel | January 20, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

What a short strange trip its been.
Democrats, we hardly knew ye.

I wonder what the terrorist "masterminds" will make of this. They were working so hard to vilify Obama as same or worse than Bush.

Free and fair elections are a wonderful thing. That is the point.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 20, 2010 6:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company