Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democrats scramble to save Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Senate race

There's just 72 hours of campaigning left in the Massachusetts Senate special election and national Democrats -- from the White House on down -- are working overtime to try and save state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) from a devastating defeat.

Coakley isn't doing much to help her cause; her latest gaffe came in a radio interview in which she seemed to be uncertain who former Red Sox great Curt Schilling was, referring to him as a "Yankee fan" before being corrected by the host. (Her campaign said she was making a joke; listen for yourself here.)

For those who dismiss Coakley's gaffe as trivial, consider this: In a state as sports-obsessed as Massachusetts, the idea that a politician wouldn't at least know who Schilling is paints a picture of a candidate out of touch with the lives of average citizens -- always a dangerous thing for a politician.

We teamed with the Post's Karl Vick on a piece in today's paper looking at how Democrats got into this pickle and whether they can get themselves out of it.

We write:

"In mid-December, the National Republican Senatorial Committee conducted a poll that showed Brown trailing by only 13 points, but it kept the results to itself. Coakley continued operating on the assumption that for all intents and purposes she had won the seat with the Dec. 8 primary, a common assumption in the state known as the bluest of the blue."
"'I think we overestimated the state's Democraticness and underestimated the national mood,' one senior Democratic strategist said Friday. 'We thought that the state's deep blue voting pattern would help us withstand national trends.'"

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 16, 2010; 10:07 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Snyder retirement creates another GOP pickup opportunity
Next: National Democrats scramble to save Coakley in Mass. special election

Comments

Well, THAT was another interesting evening of Chris Fox's loneliness on display.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I'd just had a big argument about gun control and was taking a bus home.

Check your email.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 2:08 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

Guess I'm not completely gone. What do you mean finished a big argument in 1982?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 1:47 AM | Report abuse

12: I travel to Việt Nam a lot. I own houses and property there and am retiring there in a few years. Guns are illegal. The cops might have them, Army guys have them, jewelry store guards have them. Not that they need them, I see them horsing around with other guards and they could kick someone's head right off.

People with legitimate needs can get permits. But there us no "right" to own a lethal weapon just because you think it'd be cool. And the more I think about it, the more sense that makes.

I'd just finished a big argument about this around 1982, I was on the bus, some guy got on. Thick full black beard, wild staring eyes, clearly unbalanced. Occurred to me he could walk into a store, flash the cash, walk out equipped to kill a few dozen before the cops "took him out.". That's. Just. Wrong.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Well, Noacoler, I bid you goodnight until we meet again. Keep happy, my friend.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 1:40 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, guns can be very emotional. I'm not even going to justify my armed days--just suffice it to say that I was a scared youngster and I kept a shotgun under the bed. Actually, I scared myself with my willingness to pull the trigger so I decided to get over being scared, and I did. Now, I'm not armed and not scared. Sure, they could be times when I wish I had a gun, but having a gun DOES do things to your psyche that are strange.

But, I understand why ranchers carry a rifle and that doesn't bother me at all.

A lot of the RKBA ppl seem to be coming from a kind of conspiracy paranoia. Smithsonian ran an article years ago estimating that about 25% of the population is susceptible to conspiracies. The writer believes that there is plenty of written evidence that conspiracies live for centuries, transforming themselves for the times.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm fine with hunting, with one minor caveat: I don't want them killing animals. Let them hunt each other.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

@12Bar: I've been robbed too, and I've had a gun pointed at me.  And after I got over it I remembered that a gun in the home is likelier to kill the homeowner or a member of his family, either by his own hand or having been wrestled from it, than it is to save his own life or his property.  And frankly I elect to be driven by reason and sobriety rather than emotion.  RKBA advocates prefer to deal in improbable scenarios like the Sadistic Intruder and not with real life.  Yeah, if I have some guy tying me up in preparation for slow dismemberment, I'm going to wish I'd had a gun.  But that isn't really very likely.

There was a time around age 21 when I was carrying a lot of money, never mind why, and I was armed.  I don't like that arrogant feeling it gave me.  That feeling made me a little less likely to walk away from trouble.

Top five?  No, all five are environmental for me.

Ask anyone who's travelled abroad and gained the candor of his hosts .. not much time passes before the questions come about the American love affair with firearms.  We are regarded, rightfully, as an incompletely civilized society.

Anyway, I need to confess something... I am unable to deal entirely rationally with guns.  I am so disgusted with RKBA fanatics, so disgusted with tough-guy politics, so disgusted with the fetish and the opposition to background checks, so disgusted with Va. Tech and von Brunn sorts of news, that I would rather a few robber got the upper hand than America continued this sick fetish any longer.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

I understand your view and to your credit, you are clear. I'm still ontheonehand and ontheotherhand'ing about it, because there have been times when I was armed so I understand being scared. Then there are hunters and ranchers.

Anyway, without arguing the point (as you probably figured out, I'm trying to avoid arguments), I'm curious about your view. Would you put gun control in your list of say top 5 issues?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

12bar: I grew up in Virginny.

I want the Second Amendment simply repealed. Done away with. Nit just that too many people get killed but guns and the phony confidence they instill in ah unreflective people is just a big fat negative as fat as I'm concerned. And frankly I would really like to see all this people with the "cold dead fingers" stickers get taken up on their bet. And good riddance.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

Just looked in the county library for New Barbarians by Angell. Not there, which is interesting.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe (latest REPUTABLE poll):

PPP has Brown up 51-46 over Coakley

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

I read Atlas at 14 and thougt it was profound. When I picked it up again at 19 I didn't get to page 100 and it became the first book I treated without reverence: I threw it in the fireplace.

An act not repeated until "Time Enough for Love."

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Their solution to getting gunned down while shopping is...

THE ENVELOPE PLEASE!!

... More guns. Shoot back.

"an armed society is a polite society," you know.

Besides, it's not the people who "matter" who will get gunned down

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 12:28 AM
------------------------
LOL. I come from a gun state, none more "gunny" than Montana. So I have a complicated opinion about gun control that I won't bore you with.

But anyone who thinks that everyone being armed is a good idea should spend time in Afghanistan, where every person has one, two or three assault rifles.

I always thought that one of the characteristics of civilization, is that government have some kind of control over violence.

Even back home, you have to check your weapons with the bartender. They don't you just walk around the bar armed. And in no way does that minimize the excitement on Saturday night, I'll tell you that. Keep your back to the wall!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Jake @ 11:51: BUTT OUT, LOSER

we will discuss whatever the he'll we want

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm not going to disagree with you--I'll be the first to admit I'm a little too idealistic and sheltered.

In my lifetime, I'll say that I remember a time in the 1970's when consumer protection was considered a good thing. Now that seems passe.

To the extent we surrender ourselves wholesale to corporations, we become fishfood.

I don't know what the right level of regulation is (isn't that the art of it all?), but I know that regulation is necessary for civilization to exist for the ordinary citizen.

I've read Ayn Rand, and when I was young it seemed so sensible. Now, I have to laugh at my own naivety. No place on earth does Rand's vision exist, and no place on earth has tried it either.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Their solution to getting gunned down while shopping is...

THE ENVELOPE PLEASE!!

... More guns. Shoot back.

"an armed society is a polite society," you know.

Besides, it's not the people who "matter" who will get gunned down

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Have to continue to disagree, 12Bar.  There are plenty of people in the USA who believe in exactly the lawlessness you describe and in the absence of regulation.  They're full of themselves and their ruggedness.  They see themselves as pioneers and the economic world properly a pristine wilderness where they will do well because they're resourceful (and they own guns).
 
Right wing economics is predicated on this grotesque caricature of individualism, an Ayn Rand sort of outlook on their responsibility to their fellow man (none).
 
And there are tenured economists who actually do want to see government reduced to the prevention of force and fraud, and let's not look too closely at fraud, caveat emptor.
 
Google Ian Angell and his book "The New Barbarians," this is the free market zombies' Bible.  They see the time since the Enlightenment as an anomaly, and the stratification of society into a few extremely wealthy elites and everyone else serfs to be the natural order of things.  That people with no chance of becoming those elits support such a terrible sort of world shows just how effectively you can get people working against themselves if you repeat yourself enough.
 
Don't think that conservative ideologues shy away from lawlessness.  So long as the wealthy are protected in their fortress homes, all is well.  Ordinary people can die of old age at 35, they can get maimed at work, they can be forced to work around toxins and die of cancer.
 
"Nobody forces you to work here."
 
"This is a business not a charity."
 
The model I beleive in is the Eisenhower Era (a republican of another era); 90% top tax rates, strong regulation and antitrust laws with teeth, and prosperity, government flush with revenue.  Trust in our institutions, social safety nets.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 18, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


That's fine - I was just pointing out where you could find some racism if you were looking for it.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Jake


Not even close -


Cramming a Presidential speech in between two NFL playoff games really doesn't cut it, does it ?


You turn it on, and it sounds like a town-hall meeting spinning out of control.


If Obama wanted to actually change the dynamic, he would have had to do something - instead of continuing to try to jam his program through when all the polls are telling him the people do not want it.


Obama's entire agenda has been going in the wrong direction.

Obama released terrorists to Yemen right before the Detroit bomber - how much more out-of-touch can Obama's policies be ?


How much more flying-against-reality can Obama be - if his terrorism policy is going that badly.

The scary thing for the country is this: Obama doesn't get it - even after the bomber plot unfolded, for days Obama's people said they would continue to release terrorists to Yemen - they didn't change the policy until they were confronted many times by the media.

With the health care again - we see a tone-deaf Obama - ignoring all the town hall meetings - ignoring all the polls - and forging ahead.


Obama is now ignoring the people in Massachusetts - no matter how the election actually turns out - the people of Massachusetts have spoken - they do NOT want the health care bill.

Do you think Obama listened today???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Noacoler wrote "Free market ideas work at a farmer's market where one can walk from kiosk to kiosk and compare quality and price with complete information. Any higher scale it's fairy dust used to hoodwink us by tapping into our reverence for anything having to do with freedom."
-----------------------------------
Do you really mean this? Interesting if large scale market economies are not possible. I guess I never seriously thought about that.

On a sidebar, even the farmer's market wouldn't work if you had to worry about being gunned down while shopping.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

37th,

I'm not interested in arguing with you. I'm more into discussing what we agree on and seeing if we can improve on it.

I've seen signs (in pictures) that look racist to me, but perhaps you haven't seen them. No problem, because I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Not my style.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


I've taken a look at many pictures, and I haven't seen any racist signs.


As has been pointed out many times:


Obama brought his children to a church which on its website stated that there was a "white values system" and a "black values system" - and said one was superior to the other.


Obama brought his children their for years - and there is no way that Obama did not know what his church stood for.


Obama gave $20,000 to that racist church.

So, these charges you are trying to throw around should come full circle.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

I think we're talking about different things.

All the free market zombies I've ever heard from regard antitrust laws as interference in markets, and prices are supposed to seek their own level by the infallible equillibrium if supply an' demand. You know, the magic.

As for competition, one man's competition us another man's wasteful duplication of effort.

Free market ideas work at a farmer's market where one can walk from kiosk to kiosk and compare quality and price with complete information. Any higher scale it's fairy dust used to hoodwink us by tapping into our reverence for anything having to do with freedom.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 11:39 PM
--------------------------------------
Now I'm beginning to understand you better. Yes, I think that a lot of people spout off about getting rid of all regulation. Serious economists don't talk that way. No regulation, you have created a predatory environment.

Do you think the U.S. has, from time to time, been able to balance regulation and competition to obtain a positive outcome for investors, customers, employees and the public?

I'm assuming you believe that the system is out of balance at present.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:52 PM | Report abuse

Back on the topic of "Democrats scrambl[ing] to save Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Senate race" was this visit enough to rally the base? Or, will whatever number he convinced to vote for her be outweighed by the hornets' nest he stirred up? We'll see Tuesday.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Nobody ever said that all Obama opponents are racists.

But people who scream that he's a niggger, people who carry signs showing him with a bone in his nose, people who claim he wasn't born in the USA and is not legally president, 100% racists.

And so is, I would add, anyone opposed to the man himself. Oppose this or that policy, fine. I oppose plenty. But opposed to the man himself? Klansman without a white sheet. Period.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

"Some" people are racists, but "some" people opposed to Obama are not.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 11:40 PM
----------------------------------
I agree with you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

meaning they want all the benefid of
living in a society with fire departments and police and an educated workforce to enable business, national defense, but they don't want to pay for it and they don't want to have to consider anyone else, just do whatever they want.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 11:29 PM
----------------------------------------
I suspect a lot of people who want to get government out of their lives, don't mean that literally. There are places with no government (Yemen and Somalia) and no one in their right mind would want to live there. You are right--no government means no security and no future.

Did you see the Cormac McCarthy's film "The Road"? I highly recommend it if you can stand it. It is a fair portrayal of life without government. I can't get it out of my mind.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

"Some" people are racists, but "some" people opposed to Obama are not.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

Also, free market is not equivalent to no regulation. If there is no regulation, companies will price fix. If there is no regulation, companies will merge to a point where there is no competition. Seems obvious to me that a certain level of regulation is needed to create an environment for transparent prices and sufficient competition.

==

I think we're talking about different things.

All the free market zombies I've ever heard from regard antitrust laws as interference in markets, and prices are supposed to seek their own level by the infallible equillibrium if supply an' demand. You know, the magic.

As for competition, one man's competition us another man's wasteful duplication of effort.

Free market ideas work at a farmer's market where one can walk from kiosk to kiosk and compare quality and price with complete information. Any higher scale it's fairy dust used to hoodwink us by tapping into our reverence for anything having to do with freedom.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

We have a case study in front of us in Haiti. If government is too limited, you see the effect in the aftermath of an earthquake. No police to keep order, no one to pick up bodies or count them, no one to rescue people, no food or water from the government, no medical help, etc. If Haiti had an enemy lying in wait, they would move in and take over now.

The US hightailed it down there not only to help, but also to prevent plague, anarchy, coup and illegal immigration, because Haiti doesn't have the government to take care of things.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:37 PM | Report abuse

If you go down that path, you will miss the whole point - most of these people just want to be left alone, and don't want any more taxes or government programs.

==

meaning they want all the benefid of
living in a society with fire departments and police and an educated workforce to enable business, national defense, but they don't want to pay for it and they don't want to have to consider anyone else, just do whatever they want.

Explain to me why anyone should take such people seriously. Or what makes them any different from spoiled children. Other than being older.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

37th,

You make a good point about legitimacy. The Tea Party anger is real and therefore is legit. Please understand that I don't paint the whole movement with the same brush. It's pretty clear that anger is the uniting force, and some people are angry about fiscal matters, some angry that the D's are running government, and you have to admit, some are waving signs about race.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:26 PM | Report abuse

37th,

You misunderstand me. I didn't say Tea Party ppl are racists. I said *some* racists have attached themselves to the fringe of the movement.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

Also, free market is not equivalent to no regulation. If there is no regulation, companies will price fix. If there is no regulation, companies will merge to a point where there is no competition. Seems obvious to me that a certain level of regulation is needed to create an environment for transparent prices and sufficient competition.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


If you go down that path, you will miss the whole point - most of these people just want to be left alone, and don't want any more taxes or government programs.

When you go down your path, you also shut down all conversation.

Are you trying to say that everyone in Massachusetts who wants to vote for Brown are racists? No, there are many other factors at play there.


When you throw racist charges into the mix, you are really saying that their positions are not legitimate, that they really should be agreeing with you.


But they do not agree with you - that is what you have to get over - they do not want a far left wing agenda with massive taxes and more government programs.


They do not agree with that. Perhaps you don't get that the country as a whole really isn't behind that agenda.


There is a disconnect on what the election meant - the democrats think that they should rush through a bunch of things because they won't have the majorities soon.


There is a FUNDAMENTAL problem with that - if that agenda was good for the country, it should be good ALL THE TIME, not just a short period of time when the democrats can rush it though.


It seems a great deal of democrats don't want to "get that" - they rather come up with some charge that is not legit - and somehow convince themselves that the mood of the country is not legit either.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Oh, not lawlessness, not in America, but no regulation of business, no guff about ethics or doing their part for society, the function of law being the protection of property and privilege.

Someone breaks into a house in a poor neighborhood, bored cop fills out a form, barely able to conceal his indifference. Black man walks down the street in Medina (Bill Gates' hood) and he's surrounded ad cuffed in seconds. I lived in Medina for a while.

Ever wonder why poor conservatives are so reverent of the rich? Is it in their interest that the rich get their way? No. Our politics is already almost there, 30 years of steady drumbeat about the animistic marketplace. Grover Norquist, George Will, all those lying twisted b4stards.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler and 37th,

Just my opinion, but it seems that there are *some* people who don't like Obama's race. Also seems that these people would attach themselves to a movement that is protesting the present government. Therefore, seems logical to me that some of the protesters are racists, and that the rest are not racially motivated.

I don't know what is in people's hearts, but if I see a sign that refers to race, I'm going to assume the person carrying that sign is telling you what motivates him or her.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

I am not a student of economic systems, so I will probably blurt out all sort of stupid things. But here goes. I don't know how markets can operate efficiently in an environment where there is insufficient government to curb and punish violence. I surely don't mean free markets are equivalent to lawlessness.

One of the main reasons the American financial market has been so successful is because of sufficient government regulation to convince investors that they know enough to evaluate investing decisions. Companies like Enron are particularly jarring to the market, because it puts to the lie that investors understand the business. Enron filed all the right S forms, was audited by one of the best (AA&Co, my alma mater) and was blessed by every Wall Street grand poobah, and turns out, all bravo sierra. I lost a ton of $ on Enron, so I'm particularly mad about it.

If all regulation was lifted from Wall Street, you would see investors fleeing to London, Paris, Tokyo, India, anywhere but here.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I am overanalyzing it--just trying to get a grip on how the Tea Party will play out.

==

uh there's only one way for an enraged mob to play out. These racists are merely angry but not in any coherent or productive way. Interviewed, the *never* mention taxes, they always call Obama names, usually Fascist and Communist (yes, both at once, oblivious to the contradiction), and once in a while you get and honest one who speaks his uh mind and calls the President of the United States of America a niggger.

That's the movement right there. All the rest is phony justification.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


Yea, its an amorphous group of people -


And trying to assign some leader - who will have personal negatives attached to them will again miss the point completely.

I think there is widespread disagreement in this country on the mandate in the 2008 election.


On one hand, there is a natural swing between the parties - they alternate in power.


That alternation does not mean the the country as a whole has endorsed massive government programs which will last forever - and massively raise taxes.


If the democrats honestly believe that, they are mistaken.

People are OK with Obama being President, and they are OK with the democrats in power, however they DO NOT want their taxes raised, they DO NOT want massive government programs being created.


In all Obama's speeches last year, that really was not the headline - OK maybe buried on some website there were all these position papers - but few read them -


AND the election certainly did not mean that everyone in the country agreed with everything in all the position papers on the website.


There is a SERIOUS AND REAL DISCONNECT between what the democrats think they have the go-ahead with from the country based on their majorities - and what the country really wants.


OK - you got Bush out - you got to start ending the Iraq war - but that doesn't mean the country is on board with massive tax increase and a massive government health care program.


There - that disconnect is the momentum behind your tea party movement - it will push it ahead.


The democrats who think they have to jam something down the throats of America - and get it done way before the election - are fueling the flames.


If they are so confident about their policies, the democrats should be willing to vote on their health care bill one week before the next election - instead they want to do it as fast as possible, so everyone forgets by November.

Does anyone see a problem there???


That is what is behind your tea party movement - and it gets stronger as the democrats appply pressure to get their agenda which the country really doesn't want.

Listen to the people, don't be a fraud - and don't try to pull one over the people.


How hard can that be ? But it seems like the democrats have gone full force in that direction.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

12bae: please read my posts listed as 2:50 and 3:01 this morning (midnight fir me).

Free markets in Chile: all the money in the hands of a few, 40% unemployment.

Free markets in Somalia: warlords in control, people hijacking commercial vessels in order to eat.

Expecting anything other than serfdom in the absence if regulation is like expecting to be able to pull away a table and have everything on it remain in midair. The powerful always want to secure their status and improve it, and redistributive regulation is the only force that can stop them.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

AET Aetna
AFL Aflack
HUM Humana
CI Cigna
SIE Sierra

---------------------
This is a list of large health insurers. I just picked out 5 I recognized. Just go to Yahoo, input the symbol, and look at the 52 week highs for these companies. These stocks are soaring. There is a reason!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:19 PM
-----------------------
Could it be this special interest group has a sweetheart deal with Obama...

Posted by: Callie1 | January 17, 2010 10:27 PM
-------------------------------
Please understand it's not just these 5 companies, it's the whole group. And yes, the healthcare bill obviously is making the insurors happy. Everytime I hear someone say the insurors are going to go broke under the new healthcare bill, I wonder what they know that Wall Street doesn't know.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

37th,

Your description of the Tea Party as a loose coalition seems right to me. Your description of the primary motivations also seem accurate (while I don't personally share these motivations). Perhaps I am overanalyzing it--just trying to get a grip on how the Tea Party will play out.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

I do not consider myself a Tea Partier (I am registered with the American Independent Party), but I would vote for Sarah Palin as President.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

o hope you don't really mean that. I hope this is a shorthand for "I enjoy the claims made by free market advocates and I would like the sort of world we would have if they were actually true."

Because from all I've read of history, "free market" is just the latest glittery packaging of the stale old shuck and jive about trusting the wealthy to be nice one they have all the power and all the money.

Want to see a truly free market? Look at Pinochet's Chle. No, I mean before controls were restored.

For a current example, try Somalia. Republican paradise, showin' us how.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 10:27 PM
-----------------------------------
Your post reminds me again to be careful. I am indeed shorthanding a principle. As an American, I think we have a tendency to advocate principles in the "American mode" without even realizing it.

I am interested in your point of view and want to learn from it. Tell us about Chile and Somalia and what happened there.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


I think you are trying to over-analyze the "tea party movement" - first, it is an amorphous group - with many people and sometimes differt opinions on the issues.


A bunch of posters today were trying to nail down the "tea party movement" to specific positions, and then saying that they didn't make sense, or that some people in the movement werent all in agreement.

However - behind the tea party movement is a widespread dissatisfaction with Obama - dissatisfaction with the health care bill - and widespread dissatisfaction with any idea that taxes will go up in any form.


People do not want their taxes higher - property taxes all over the place have been rising, and they have gone far beyond reasonable a long time ago.


States are in trouble - they are looking to raise taxes too.


Anyone looking at their family budget is simply NOT going to want new taxes with the health care bill.


I don't think the democrats in Washington get it - budgets are tight and the democrats think they have room to throw more taxes onto the heap.


It is not there.


Yes, the democrats did win the election - however there is a natural swing of Presidential elections between the parties.


The democrats seem to have the idea that everytime the swing comes their way, they can raise taxes and create more government programs -


The American people are saying - you may have won this swing in the election cycle - but don't raise our taxes and LEAVE US ALONE.


Taking that feeling - which is legit - and casting it in a racial mode really causes the discussion to go downhill really fast.


Yes, there is a perception around the country that the democrats are out-of-touch and not listening - they are wrapped up in their agenda -


NOT what the people want - and yes, there is a disconnect between what the people want and the "democratic agenda" - no matter who won what election.


For the democrats to pretend that is not the case, or to keep on being obsessed with their agenda - just proves how out of touch they are with America.

So there is your answer - you are trying to "figure" out the tea party movement.

What is really is - is that the democrats are out of touch with America - obsessed with the "meaning" of some election - and they are simply not listening to America.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I am FOR free market practices.

==

o hope you don't really mean that. I hope this is a shorthand for "I enjoy the claims made by free market advocates and I would like the sort of world we would have if they were actually true."

Because from all I've read of history, "free market" is just the latest glittery packaging of the stale old shuck and jive about trusting the wealthy to be nice one they have all the power and all the money.

Want to see a truly free market? Look at Pinochet's Chle. No, I mean before controls were restored.

For a current example, try Somalia. Republican paradise, showin' us how.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

AET Aetna
AFL Aflack
HUM Humana
CI Cigna
SIE Sierra

---------------------
This is a list of large health insurers. I just picked out 5 I recognized. Just go to Yahoo, input the symbol, and look at the 52 week highs for these companies. These stocks are soaring. There is a reason!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:19 PM
-----------------------
Could it be this special interest group has a sweetheart deal with Obama...

Posted by: Callie1 | January 17, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Did somebody say "bi-partisan"?? That takes two parties to actually engage in bi-partisanship. The democrats have shut the door on every thing the republicans have offered, literally. Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the special friends of Obama are negotiating behind closed doors, literally. The vast majority of legal citizens are not, I repeat, not represented. As a tax paying voting citizen I demand my Constitutional right to be represented by all the elected senators and representatives from my state. Any president that does otherwise is violating my rights and the U.S. Constitution. We have ample grounds to impeach the sob.

Posted by: Callie1 | January 17, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

I think the next big TEA Party event is their National Convention, with Gov. Palin giving the keynote address on 2/6 (so they may not be "leaderless" for much longer ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 10:14 PM
--------------------------------
Do you consider yourself as a Tea Partier? Is Sarah Palin who you would support? As opposed to Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty (to choose 3)?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

AET Aetna
AFL Aflack
HUM Humana
CI Cigna
SIE Sierra

---------------------
This is a list of large health insurers. I just picked out 5 I recognized. Just go to Yahoo, input the symbol, and look at the 52 week highs for these companies. These stocks are soaring. There is a reason!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

I think the next big TEA Party event is their National Convention, with Gov. Palin giving the keynote address on 2/6 (so they may not be "leaderless" for much longer ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

37th wrote "I hear your post at 9:40. I am just thinking that at this point, with the health care bill so close to passage, the health care lobby would accept a radical departure from where the bill is right now."
---------------------------------
I think the insurance lobby likes things right where they are. Health insurance companies stocks are mostly at 52 week highs. They are loving it.

If you want to know what my fear is, it is that the D's have sold out to the insurance companies. Wall Street is a lot of unsavory things, but dumb isn't one of them. They *know* this bill is good for business.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm praying for the good of this nation that Scott Brown beats Coakley. But if he doesn't, this race has answered the question; What will be the outcome in 2010? Conservatives will take back congress and restore the two party system.

Posted by: Callie1 | January 17, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Because the company would be forced to put you into the one size fits all policy, which they could never charge enough for.

However if you could pick and choose the appropriate segments that were mutually acceptable, you could have some insurance with changes over time as your risk profile changed.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 10:01 PM
-------------------------------
Perhaps you are right that ala carte pricing would solve the problem. Of course, that does create quite an issue for the insured. What to insure for--what not? Crap shoot. I would insure for cancer--maybe not for heart disease?? Not for pregnancy (that would be easy).

The analog for this is in property insurance. I used to be licensed in prop and casualty, so know a little about this. It used to be that homeowners bought policies known as fire and wind, because that was pretty much what it covered. Then the industry came up with homeowners policies, which covered all risks, except for exclusions. This was a much better answer for the insureds since they were not asked to have a crystal ball. I would guess that all 50 states have all risk homeowners policies now, and very few homeowners buy fire and wind.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


I hear your post at 9:40. I am just thinking that at this point, with the health care bill so close to passage, the health care lobby would accept a radical departure from where the bill is right now.


Yes, the idea is to get the Republicans on board too - but getting rid of the massive government program and the new taxes.

The Republicans may not want to play that game - or maybe they will - from many of their statements it sounds like they would accept such a compromise.

Obviously the ultra-partisans on both sides would be disappointed - the democrats are hoping to get a health care program which will "hook" a huge segment of the population on benefits and get them voting democratic for decades.

The Republicans are hoping to have their opposition to helaht care led to electorial victories as well.


Maybe the Republicans may feel that after this week, they are better off trying to ride the wind, rather than a compromise.

There you have it - that is what compromise is all about - that is what post-partisan is all about - that is what bi-partisan is all about.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

What do you think about Martha Coakley being bought off on the Keith Winfield Grand Jury trial as DA for Middlesex Co., Mass. Winfield had sexually molested his 23 month-old niece with a hot curling iron. The little girl had burned flesh peeling off of her genital and anus areas and spent a month in a hospital. Martha Coakley recommended that Keith Winfield be released on his own personal recognizance with no cash bail until 10 months later. Keith Winfield was free for two years until Dec. 2007, until Coakley's successor at DA won a conviction of 2 life-terms. Martha Coakley did nothing but delay this trial during her tenure in the hope it would go away because Keith Winfield's father was a union big shot who had steered a lot of campaign cash to her for election.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 9:55 PM
----------------------------
I'm not going to argue for/against Coakley. I don't live there, don't know anything about it, and frankly don't care about it (except for the political implications for Congress). In fact, until a couple days ago, I wouldn't have recognized a photo of either candidate.

What I am interested in is this Tea Party movement and how this will play out. I agree that this is historic.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Because the company would be forced to put you into the one size fits all policy, which they could never charge enough for.

However if you could pick and choose the appropriate segments that were mutually acceptable, you could have some insurance with changes over time as your risk profile changed.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

What do you think about Martha Coakley being bought off on the Keith Winfield Grand Jury trial as DA for Middlesex Co., Mass. Winfield had sexually molested his 23 month-old niece with a hot curling iron. The little girl had burned flesh peeling off of her genital and anus areas and spent a month in a hospital. Martha Coakley recommended that Keith Winfield be released on his own personal recognizance with no cash bail until 10 months later. Keith Winfield was free for two years until Dec. 2007, until Coakley's successor at DA won a conviction of 2 life-terms. Martha Coakley did nothing but delay this trial during her tenure in the hope it would go away because Keith Winfield's father was a union big shot who had steered a lot of campaign cash to her for election.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Reform does not include throwing out actuarial analysis and inserting government fiat. Fat smokers are riskier.

The answer is to allow different portfolios of policies. Catastrophic for young healthy people, pregnancy for impending couples, etc.

This reform effort is about power, not medicine.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:46 PM
--------------------------------
Perhaps you didn't read my prior posts. I am uninsurable because I had cancer 10 years ago. If insurance company underwrites me, the answer is always we don't want you.

I am not pushing some ideology here. But I've been around to remember a time when you could form a small group to get insurance--can't do that any more. I remember when insurance companies did not rescind policies later--now they do. And all that happened with no federal involvement.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

We are talking about the health care industry here - which has experienced a wide range of abuses by the insurance companies.


I don't know to what extent "free market practices" makes sense to apply to what has been going on.


I believe there is general agreement that pre-existing conditions should be covered - however the "free market" has made it virtually impossible to cover pre-existing conditions.

The variable pricing given to large companies perhaps can be views as a "free market practice." However, I believe that there is agreement that individuals should be allowed to purchase affordable health insurance.


So why not pass a law which states that individuals can purchase health insurance at the same rates given to large corporations ??? It would be a general good all around, and the costs to the insurance industry minimal.


In fact, the economy might benefit overall by placing small business on the same cost basis as large corporations.

I honestly believe that a better system can be created in a regulatory environment - instead of creating a massive government program to deliver health insurance - and without new taxes.

The "free market" is free when all competitors are operating on a level playing field. Some may believe that efforts to create a playing field which is not level is fair under "free market practices."


What has happened in Massachusetts INDICATES THAT THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT IS MUCH DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.


OBAMA SHOULD CHANGE COURSE IMMEDIATELY.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Reform does not include throwing out actuarial analysis and inserting government fiat. Fat smokers are riskier.

The answer is to allow different portfolios of policies. Catastrophic for young healthy people, pregnancy for impending couples, etc.

This reform effort is about power, not medicine.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

12 bar. Your issue is with volume discounts offered to groups. If the government stepped aside you could freely form a group, bargain across state lines and purchase different forms of insurance, not the one size fits all.

You see dear reader, big government oppresion is the source of your misery.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:34 PM
-------------------------------------
What would have to step aside today are 50 state governments, isn't that correct? Aren't health insurance regulated at the state level?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Today Obama's comment about his "white socks" flopped. Evidently written for him by his speech writer who is a Yankee fan. When the crowd failed to roll in the aisles he looked both puzzled and angry. The man is a fake. Coakley is a fraud. She used her office to protect a rapist of a two year old child because he was the brother of her boss. How far do you think she will go to give Obama what he wants in spite of what the people want?

Posted by: Callie1 | January 17, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

37th,

We are closer to agreement that you realize. I would love to just fix what is so obviously wrong.

I would hope you are right that R's and D's would get together and strongarm the insurance companies to stop these abusive practices.

I just don't believe it, though. One reason is the huge insurance company lobby who are not going to just lie down and take reform unless there is something in it for them.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

12 bar. Your issue is with volume discounts offered to groups. If the government stepped aside you could freely form a group, bargain across state lines and purchase different forms of insurance, not the one size fits all.

You see dear reader, big government oppresion is the source of your misery.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

You have that quite backwards 12 bar. Free markets allow and encourage variable pricing as firms attempt to undercut the competition.

Price fixing is when firms get together and decide it will not be allowed to undercut a price. The best example is realtors all agreeing to never charge less than six percent. The proper answer is that I don't know what others charge.

With a free market the consumer can choose the lowest price thAt meets their needs. Overtime the price usually falls without government interference - cell phones, lasick, laptops and TVs for example.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:29 PM
--------------------------------
I think you have misunderstood my post. Free market practices (if followed) eliminates pricing discrepancies. The problem is that there are not free market practices being followed.

I am FOR free market practices.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


Anti-trust has many parts to it - there are many different kinds of anti-competitive practices are illegal.


One could be charging different prices for the same services.


There have been court cases which stated that in order for a quanity discount to handed out, that cost-savings from that quantity sale has to justify the discount given out. I don't think the health care industry is even close to that.

There has to be regulation to curb these abuses.


I think there is a way to come up with serious regulation of the health care industry which would curb the abuses, yet avoid creating a massive government program, and tax increases. The average person should have access to the prices given to large companies for health insurance is one start. It can be done.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

You have that quite backwards 12 bar. Free markets allow and encourage variable pricing as firms attempt to undercut the competition.

Price fixing is when firms get together and decide it will not be allowed to undercut a price. The best example is realtors all agreeing to never charge less than six percent. The proper answer is that I don't know what others charge.

With a free market the consumer can choose the lowest price thAt meets their needs. Overtime the price usually falls without government interference - cell phones, lasick, laptops and TVs for example.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Whatever the final outcome on Tuesday, the fact that this has happened in Massachusetts has changed the political landscape enormously. History has been made.


The question is: will the democrats listen?

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. ALL LAST SUMMER, ALL LAST YEAR. AND NOW MASSACHUSETTS. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.


Will the democrats continue to jam a health care bill down the throats of America - convinced still that somehow the health care bill will lead to some sort of permanent electorial advantage???


Can the facts on the ground, can the reality be further from the truth ???

Obama doesn't have to go further from his own campaign speeches to see the way to go: genuine bipartisanship.

Even today, Obama mentioned that the Republicans were to blame for Obama not being bipartisan.

That is not the truth - Obama was elected to be the post-partisan guy - it is his task to make it happen - which means keep on bringing the Republicans in - and keep on trying - compromising to find something everyone can agree on.

Post-partisanship is does not have the attitude "we won the election so we are getting our way" -


no post-partisanship was what Obama was elected to do which was to find something that everyone can agree on.


Significant difference.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

It figures that Obama and the Democraps could care less about the type of person they put up for election in Mass.

Get real. For gods sake John Kerry is from massachusettes.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

I believe it should be illegal to have different prices for the same service.


Maybe it is - it could be against anti-trust laws.


That is one thing that should be dealt with immediately.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 4:27 PM
--------------------------------------
Just coming back. On this, Noacoler is correct. Antitrust is to prevent price fixing (essentially). Free market practices would eliminate prices that range from $1000 to $7000 for the same procedure. However, as an uninsured person, I can tell you there is NO transparency in pricing. Try calling around for the price of a procedure if you want a real education. Try calling a hospital for the price of a procedure. It's almost laughable--they can't tell you, they have to look at your credit report first.

I have been told by a conservative that a large part of the problem is that so many doctors, clinics and hospitals cross-own (if that's a word) each other. Now, that would be something for antitrust.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow. The teabaggers are out in force on the blog. Kinda glad i've got a life.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 17, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't make out what he was screaming (but he was carrying an abortion sign ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that Obama stopped his speech completely for the heckler - instead of ignoring the guy.

Coakley has really blown the election with her gaffes - she could never get any traction.


Her main problem is that the liberals - including the liberals on this blog - are unable to counter the arguments against Obama - there defenses come up all garbled, and at worst, seemingly out of touch with reality.

Take broad___joe for instance, he can not have an exchange based on the substance of the issues.


The name-calling and the hate-mongering from the liberals is all they have left.

,
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Susy, Jake, 37th, et al,

Where is the next exercise of power by the Tea Partiers? How are you handicapping Florida senate?

For sure, the Tea Party is a force. A bit like the Ross Perot movement, but stronger. And no Ross Perot to lead it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama gets heckled at the Coakley rally today. See video below. The hall where he spoke wasn't anywhere near filled to capacity. Meanwhile Brown held a packed, standing room only, rally in Worcester.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJIg3c-rg3g&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 17, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Obviously not, armpeg. Yet these same libs screamed bloody murder about Gov. Huckabee's commutations.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

It figures that Obama and the Democraps could care less about the type of person they put up for election in Mass.
Martha Coakley oversaw the Keith Winfield Grand Jury trial as DA for Middlesex Co., Mass. Winfield had sexually molested a 23 month-old little girl with a hot curling iron. The little girl had burned flesh peeling off of her genital and anus areas and spent a month in a hospital. Martha Coakley recommended that Keith Winfield be released on his own personal recognizance with no cash bail until 10 months later. Keith Winfield was free for two years until Dec. 2007, until Coakley's successor at DA won a conviction of 2 life-terms. Martha Coakley did nothing but delay this trial during her tenure in the hope it would go away because Keith Winfields father was a union big shot who had steered a lot of campaign cash to her for election.
Have you liberals, Obama, and Democrap Socialists no shame recommending someone like this for a Senate seat?

Posted by: armpeg | January 17, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

SuzyCcup:

Welcome back : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Suzy


the election is Tuesday - it is amazing what is happening up there.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 8:19 PM


You're right. I stand corrected. I guess I was trying to lessen the misery for the libs. The waiting must be horrific for them.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 17, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Kelly14:

Did you similarly think that Bush41 didn't need to know how much a gallon of milk cost? Regardless, the point about Schilling is that she PRETENDED to know who he was. I wouldn't have had a problem with her saying "I don't know who he is."

Is that enough of a defense of her for you? If a woman needs a man to "defend" her, then maybe she's not the right choice for the SENATE in the first place.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

"For those who dismiss Coakley's gaffe as trivial, consider this: In a state as sports-obsessed as Massachusetts, the idea that a politician wouldn't at least know who Schilling is paints a picture of a candidate out of touch with the lives of average citizens -- always a dangerous thing for a politician."

____

Right. And how sad is that? She needs to spend less time fretting about the real problems of the citizenry of Massachusetts and learn the names of her state's athletes. Is there no gentleman athlete to come to her rescue?

Posted by: Kelly14 | January 17, 2010 7:41 PM

Kelly14, you don't get it and you obviously don't live in Mass. Learning the names of the state's athletes is not the point. Schilling is such a well known person in Mass, that you would have no choice but to question Coakley's intelligence. If she stated that John Kerry was a Senator of Oregon, would that change your mind? Schilling may be "just" a sports figure, but he's probably more widely known than Kerry. Besides, if you couple the Schilling gaffe with all the others she made, she comes across as one taco short of a combo plate.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 17, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Suzy


the election is Tuesday - it is amazing what is happening up there.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

"For those who dismiss Coakley's gaffe as trivial, consider this: In a state as sports-obsessed as Massachusetts, the idea that a politician wouldn't at least know who Schilling is paints a picture of a candidate out of touch with the lives of average citizens -- always a dangerous thing for a politician."

____

Right. And how sad is that? She needs to spend less time fretting about the real problems of the citizenry of Massachusetts and learn the names of her state's athletes. Is there no gentleman athlete to come to her rescue?

Posted by: Kelly14 | January 17, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Suzy

Tell us more about this dog - also would you please tell us what your friend are saying in Massachusetts - and if you have friend who are involved in politics one way or another, that's cool - but I am more interested in what people are saying who are not normally involved in politics - like your friends and family members.


Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 7:04 PM


To 37thandOstreet, can I call you 37 for short? Thanks.

What are my friends and family saying? My mom and dad are democrats. Always have been. But they're both voting for Brown tomorrow. My dad says that doesn't mean they've become republicans. Far from it. They'll remain dems. But they don't want any socialized medicine. They feel Obama has wasted his time on health care.

My friends are all voting for Brown, also, except one (that I know of). For some reason, they just don't like Obama. Don't know why. But honestly, if you want to know what people here in Mass are thinking, just take a drive around any neighborhood. The few that did have Coakley signs must have taken them down out of embarrassment. I don't see any anymore. That says a lot.
We have a very liberal newspaper here (the Boston Globe) that keeps trying everything to push people away from Brown, but it isn't working.
Barring any massive voter fraud, Brown will win tomorrow, no doubt in my mind.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 17, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

The 17th Amendment reads:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

----


That means that Kirk's term as Senator ends at the election - not anytime longer. So Kirk should not be voting after Tuesday.

As we talked about before - the real shift in Washington as a result of the campaigns in Massachusetts is probably in the House - those House democrats have to be looking at their districts and wondering -


if they go through with the health care bill, what is going to happen in their own districts???


The political climate is simply too volatile now to pass health care in its present form.


The political reality is here.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

GO SCOTT BROWN


GO SCOTT BROWN


GO SCOTT BROWN


GO SCOTT BROWN


GO SCOTT BROWN


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

OK, now for my snowboarding adventure today. Well, I told you yesterday that I was going to wear a COAKLEY SUCKS sign and my girlfriends would all wear GO SCOTT signs. Everything went really when on my first few runs, but then I messed up on a steep slope. I almost did a face plant but was able to hit the ground without much damage. Just some sore wrists.
I'm laying there on my stomach getting angry at myself for falling down and hoping no one saw me fall when, all of a sudden, this elderly man on skis came to a quick stop right next to me. Before he could say anything, I told him that I was alright and didn't need any help. He said he figured and mumbled something about snowboarders being made of rubber. Then he stared at the sign on my back and said, "can you please explain to me why you think Coakley sucks?" I responded by saying, "sir, where have you been the last two weeks? Did you miss her gaffe-a-day routine?" He seemed upset and pointed his skis downhill. I was waiting for him to say, "damn snowboarders!" and then take off. Instead, he drives his poles into the ground, pushed off, and yelled out, "I'm voting for Brown too, ha ha!"

It was the best run I had all day!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 17, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Suzy

Tell us more about this dog - also would you please tell us what your friend are saying in Massachusetts - and if you have friend who are involved in politics one way or another, that's cool - but I am more interested in what people are saying who are not normally involved in politics - like your friends and family members.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Suzy. I am afraid pets are liberals. Think about it. They get free food, free medical care, a free place to stay and seldom work. This inculcates the liberal ideaology in creatures.

As long as they are loving of their fellow beings we let it all slide.

My parrot kept squawking barrraaaack. I am pretty sure the bird is more intelligent than most liberals but still keep him around for amusement.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Suzy

I am glad you are back from snowboarding.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Another ped pecadillio:

White people love rules. It explains why so they get upset when people cut in line, why they tip so religiously and why they become lawyers. But without a doubt, the rule system that white people love the most is grammar. It is in their blood not only to use perfect grammar but also to spend significant portions of time pointing out the errors of others.

When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like “hunger,” “being poor,” or “getting shot.” If you ask a white person, the most common response will likely be “people who use ‘their’ when they mean ‘there.’ Maybe comma splices, I’m not sure but it’s definitely one of the two.”

If you wish to gain the respect of a white person, it’s probably a good idea that you find an obscure and debated grammar rule such as the “Oxford Comma” and take a firm stance on what you believe is correct. This is seen as more productive and forward thinking than simply stating your anger at the improper use of “it’s.

Another important thing to know is that when white people read magazines and books they are always looking for grammar and spelling mistakes. In fact, one of the greatest joys a white person can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication. Finding one allows a white person to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake. The more respected the publication, the greater the thrill. If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.

Though they reserve the harshest judgment for professional, do not assume that white people will cast a blind eye to your grammar mistakes in email and official documents. They will judge you and make a general assessment about your intelligence after the first infraction. Fortunately, this situation can be improved if you ask a white person to proof read your work before you send it out. “Hey Jill, I’m sorry to do this, but I have a business degree and I’m a terrible writer. Can you look this over for me?” This deft maneuver will allow the white person to feel as though their liberal arts degree has a purpose and allow you to do something more interesting.

Don’t worry, it is impossible for a white person to turn down the opportunity to proofread.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow, what a day! The first thing I did after I got back from Snowboarding (more on that later) was to walk Titus, my beautiful German Shepherd. I got his backpack out (he loves to hike with me and my friends in the summer) and put it on him. It fits over his back kinda like saddle bags, one on each side. Anyway, I attached a sign on each side - one said GO SCOTT!, the other said HONK IF COAKLEY SUCKS. Off we went. I couldn't believe it! There were so many horns, it started to sound like a bunch of car alarms going off at the same time. Titus didn't like it though. He kept looking up at me as if to say, "can we go home now?" So we came back home and I thanked him. Later on I'll cook him a big steak. He likes it rare with olive oil and lots of garlic.

You can feel the excitement here in Mass. Tomorrow is the big day we've been waiting for. Wish everyone could be here to experience it.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 17, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Please refrain from using the phrase " shoving it down your throat" in the presence of chissy foxxy. It makes him go all Scott Ritter.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler, GT, Chrisfox

“Brown's niggardly votes on rape victims and 9/11 workers are historical fact. Nor that I expect a lousy Republican to understand the distinction between truth and lying, especially in this Bizarro World blog.

I think you are the one who has trouble with understanding truth and lies. If you don’t watch TV, then how do you know how these people think unless you are reading commentary by someone who watches TV. In that case, you are as lazy as they are since you are depending on someone else to do your homework. Of course you did do that investigated web site search of McDonnell’s web site and showed he did not use the word Republican thus he ran as a Democrat even though his ideas were different not to mention their were numerous references to GOP though out the web site. In fact, you depended on DDAIVD to do your heavy lifting in your search. Please you are a light weight who knows nothing about historical facts.

Posted by: sliowa1 | January 17, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Hello everyone, it's Suzy. I'm back from a great day of snowboarding. I'll tell you about it in some later posts. Hope everyone is doing OK. Special hello to noacoler, broadwayjoe, drindl, drainyou, and all the other libs that can't stand me. Hello also to 37thandOstreet, moonbat, jaked, and drivl.

How did the Obama rally for Coakley go? Haven't had a chance to check up on it yet. I did hear that Coakley showed up late for her own rally and Obama was very upset! One of Coakley's aides supposedly apologized to Obama and told him they were late because Coakley thought it was being held in Yankee Stadium. Obama accepted the apology but said "let me get one thing clear, she better not call me Curt Schilling in her speech."

Be right back.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 17, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm not saying these polls are correct, but they are out there

Here are two of the latest polls:


InsideMedford/MRG 1/15 565 LV 51 41 Brown +10


PJM/CrossTarget (R) 1/14 946 LV 54 39 Brown +15

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Americans are wary of one-party government, especially the one run by Obama-Reid-Pelosi.


Seriously folks.

Even the people of Massachusetts see the wisdom in putting an early end to this.


Just listen to the liberals - how they want to jam things down Americans throats - how they hope that creating new entitlements and taxes will create new electorial majorities for them in the future.


That is not democracy.


It is a partisan-ocracy.


And it's really not being motivated by a genuine belief in what is the best for the people of the country.


I like Massachusetts.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Our gracious host has asked that we ignore noacoler, please.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 5:00 PM
_________

noa, thanks for taking it upon yourself to push back against the disinformation and nonsense, including cherrypicked bogus polls (non-compliant with journalistic standards) and fake controversies (Curt Schilling), aggressively promoted in this space to try to influence the results of an important Congressional election.

The Community

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Though these people often fill their time by talking with other friends who don’t watch TV about how they don’t watch TV, looking at leaves, cooking, reading books about left wing politics, and going to concerts/protests/poetry slams.

==

your views of other people are such thin caricatured that I guess you've been in their a loooong time. Probably since your teens. Life goes on, without you. Poor fellow, family doesn't even visit anymore.

I do read a lot of books, but left wing politics? Never. I read physics mostly, some literature. Poetry leaves me cold, excepting only Ginsburg's "Howl."

What did you do for kicks before papers were signed sealing your fate? Tractor pulls? Mud wrestling? Rodeos? Tit bars? Or throwing rocks at cars on the freeway?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Here are two of the latest polls:

InsideMedford/MRG 1/15 565 LV 51 41 Brown +10

PJM/CrossTarget (R) 1/14 946 LV 54 39 Brown +15

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Often times, white people get frustrated with the state of their country. They do not like the President, or Congress, or the health care system, or the illegal status of Marijuana. Whenever they are presented with a situation that seems unreasonable to them, their first instinct is to threaten to move to Canada.

For example, if you are watching TV with white people and there is a piece on the news about that they do not agree with, they are likely to declare “ok, that’s it, I’m moving to Canada.”

Though they will never actually move to Canada, the act of declaring that they are willing to undertake the journey is very symbolic in white culture. It shows that their dedication to their lifestyle and beliefs are so strong, that they would consider packing up their entire lives and moving to a country that is only slightly different to the one they live in now.

Within white culture, it is agreed upon that if Canada had better weather it would be a perfect place.

Being aware that this information can be used quite easily to gain the trust of white people. Whenever they say, “I’m moving to Canada,” you must immediately respond with “I have relatives in Canada.”

They will then expect you to tell them about how Canada has a perfect healthcare system, legalized everything, and no crime. Though not true, it will reassure them that they are making the right choice by saying they want to move there.

But be warned, they will reference you in future conversations and possibly call on you to settle disputes about Canadian tax rates. So use this advice only if you plan to do some basic research.

Note: Canadian white people threaten to move to Europe.

Note: Europeans are unable to threaten to move anywhere.

If you're a real loser commie pinko, then Vietnam.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Didn't say I don't own a TV, zouk, I said I don't watch TV, meaning broadcasts. I have a nice 55" plasma, for movies, no cable, no broadcast. The last few years I watched I muted the ads, then I stopped altogether. Of course, there isn't much else to do where you are, is there. TV or jigsaw puzzles, right? Except there are always a few pieces missing, just like your mind. Smirk.

Funny, most of you gomers seem to spenda lot of time playing a potted plant in front of a machine showing material geared for a 12-year old
mind, and it seems to satisfy you.

My world is a coherent place, things match.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I think that Obama will have to sit down with the Republicans and come up with a real bipartisan health care bill.

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

That would mean no new nonMD gatekeepers in the Medicare program-

how very British of Obama

Posted by: thecannula | January 17, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

our gracious host

==

does our gracious stenographer send you CARE packages of soup bones and chew toys as a reward for your support?

Probably not, since even your fellow trolls are ignoring his entreaties. There're good reasons nobody takes CC's moderation seriously, and everyone but you seems to understand them.

Go ahead and keep trying though.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The number one reason why white people like not having a TV is so that they can tell you that they don’t have a TV.

On those lonely nights when white people wish they could be watching American Idol, Lost, or Grey’s Anatomy, they comfort themselves by thinking of how when people talk about the show tomorrow they can say “I didn’t see it, I don’t have a TV.  That stuff rots your brain.”

It is effective in making other white people feel bad, and making themselves feel good about their life and life choices.

Though these people often fill their time by talking with other friends who don’t watch TV about how they don’t watch TV, looking at leaves, cooking, reading books about left wing politics, and going to concerts/protests/poetry slams.

Generally this makes them very boring and gives you very little to talk to them about.  It’s important that you NEVER suggest they are making a mistake or that there is a value to owning a TV.  You should just try to steer the conversation to allow them to talk about how they are better than you.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I think that Obama will have to sit down with the Republicans and come up with a real bipartisan health care bill.

==

that would mean a bill where insurance companies have no responsibilities to the insured, only to shareholders, raising premiums 20% every year and denying coverage, dropping customers if they go to the hospital. Republicans are faithless and dishonest and have spurned every single offer to take part in the bill.

It'll be passed by reconciliation or some other dodge ad with no republican votes, and against their red-faced opposition.

Where you been the last eight months?

Oh that's right, posting here how much you hate having a black president.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Now who is the homeschooler watching too much TV.

==

I haven't watched TV in a quarter of a century.

Brown's niggardly votes on rape victims and 9/11 workers are historical fact. Nor that I expect a lousy Republican to understand the distinction between truth and lying, especially in this Bizarro World blog.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

After this week, the House democrats should re-think their election prospects this year - the logical thing to do would be to throw out the bloated health care bill - and seek out a truly bi-partisan bill along the following lines:

I think that Obama will have to sit down with the Republicans and come up with a real bipartisan health care bill.


That means no massive government program.


No massive taxes.


No new taxes at all.


No personal mandate.


Regulation of the worst abuses of the Health care industry - allow individuals to purchase health care at the same rates as large corporations.


No more denials on pre-existing coverage.


No more cancellations.


Treat the entire country as one whole group.


At this point, I believe the insurance companies have to go for that.


The hidden problem behind all these subsidies is that they just won't work.


People don't have the money to pay for the mandate to begin with.


People don't have health insurance because they cant afford it.


There is a way to get a bipartisan bill.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

No matter which candidate wins this week, a political transformation has hit Washington - there is no doubt now that the democrats KNOW that the voters are serious - and those voters WILL throw out the democrats if they are unhappy.

The democrats have spent much of the last year overreading last year's election - and ignoring every attempt of the voters to tell them to slow down on the health care bill. The democrats have deluded themselves into believing that they will lead everyone to the promised health care regime and this will lead to electorial wins forever.

The voters have said no no no no no.

No where is this change in perception more important than in the House - which is 100% up for re-election this year and whose members should listen to the voters.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

sliowa1:

Our gracious host has asked that we ignore noacoler, please.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler

“I'll watch the food riots in the USA from the comfort of my luxurious retirement while America realizes the true promise of the free market: 45% unemployment and no safety nets, and guns in vending machines.”

Now who is the homeschooler watching too much TV. Please you sound like one of Coakley’s attack ads on Brown turning away rape victims from hospitals. It shows how desperate and incompetent the Coakely campaign is when they have to make up lies. I though the race might be close with Coakely winning in the high single digits, but what I have seen in the last 48 hrs shows me Brown has an even shot at this race.

Posted by: sliowa1 | January 17, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Our gracious host has asked that we ignore noacoler, please.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The heckler's 10 year-old son and an older Asian man were led out as well. GO BROWN!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler


They would probably say that the insurance companies negotiated discounts - however everyone should be able to access that price.


The whole industry is a mess.

The health care industry has to be cleaned up through regulation - not with a government program that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I believe it should be illegal to have different prices for the same service.


Maybe it is - it could be against anti-trust laws.

==

antitrust laws exist to •prevent• price-fixing

were you home-schooled?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Typical repellent right wing politics, boorish spoiled children screaming fir more candy and more TV. Scott Brown voters showing their quality.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

The sign said "Jesus Loves All Babies" but I couldn't make out what he (and later a woman) was actually saying.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

What was Obama's heckler saying???


I love it when they heckle him.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Coakley's Curt Schilling gaffe is reminiscent of Obama's 57 State comment. The two of them should be quite entertaining. The Washington Post interviewed Democrats backing Brown who wanted to put aside healthcare reform to concentrate on the ECONOMY (stupid(s)). Got to start making a J-O-B if you want a vote from me!

Posted by: thecannula | January 17, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

I believe it should be illegal to have different prices for the same service.


Maybe it is - it could be against anti-trust laws.


That is one thing that should be dealt with immediately.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Typical repellent right wing politics, boorish spoiled children screaming fir more candy and more TV. Scott Brown voters showing their quality.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

The emperor has no clothes! YOU LIE, Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Noacoler,

Hopefully, if you have to pay for the MRI, you'll get it at the insurance company's price, not the "whatever we can get out of you" price.

My uncle lived in the Phillipines and has a condo in Florida. He tells me healthcare in Manila is quite good and very cheap (like $25 to go to the doc). Then he comes over here once a year and gets testing (like prostate, I think), like due diligence. Similar idea to your Vietnam retirement.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE HECKLERS IN MASSACHUSETTS WITH OBAMA ????

IT IS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Abortion protester!

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Someone please tell Obama that there are 46 States.


Just in case he doesn't know.


Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are Commonwealths.


Thank you.

Sucka.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Massachusetts is not a State, it is a Commonwealth.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The One is speaking, I mean scrambl[ing] to save Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Senate race ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Thanks for the ideas. I live in CA. I've investigated HSAs, but they require a medical plan, that I can't get.

See below:
"Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) allow individuals to save money on a tax favored basis to pay for medical expenses. A person can open a California HSA only after enrolling in a qualified high deductible medical insurance plan. Anthem Blue Cross of California, Blue Shield of California, Health Net of California, Nationwide Health Plans and Pacificare of California all offer HSA compatible individual and family health insurance plans and small group health insurance."

Actually, I have not considered moving to a state with mandated healthcare. It would cost me a lot to make a move like that, but if the cancer comes back, I might have to.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

Of course it's difficult, but there are still things you can do. Have you taken advantage of health savings accounts? You can usually find Guaranteed (although expensive) insurance. Or move to MA / MD? Here are some helpful hints:

http://www.ehow.com/i/#article_4674389

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Yeah I got screwed over on my tendon repair, but I can afford it, it's just infuriating that for example they approved an MRI then srtuck me with the bill. Working with my company about it. Their coverage doesn't even match my premiums.

The way things are going here, with the right getting dangerously nutty, Obama turning out to be Bush Lite, escalating Afghanistan, no proaecutions of lawbreakers in the previous admin, I'm thinking about accelerating my departure from the USA. My second house in Việt Nam will be done before my next visit in April, it's a bleedin' palace, like 12,000 square feet, magnificent, an air-conditioned gym across the street, and I'm turning the other house in Rạch Giá into a hotel so I don't even need to touch my savings, which'll be a cozy half mil after I sell my house in the USA.

I'll watch the food riots in the USA from the comfort of my luxurious retirement while America realizes the true promise of the free market: 45% unemployment and no safety nets, and guns in vending machines.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Save it 12Bar, you're talking to not just an adolescent (Jake is about 16) who still thinks he's immortal, but one determined to never make sense. And these trolls would rather see America become like rural India than see any success by the people they hate. When they're digging through trash for food they'll be goading the liberals digging through other dumpsters. Self-interest? Not even on their radar. They're deliberate idiots.

Sorry about the cancer, ten years since sounds pretty encouraging.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 3:31 PM
-------------------------------
As to your first point, I admit it is discouraging sometime to argue about principles like freedom when people just want to be able to get healthcare. Seems like Haitians having to endure yet another day without water, while the help is getting *organized*.

But, most Americans know people like me, or are people like me. When you talk about individuals, most people *are* sympathetic and realize that the insurance companies are not exactly on our side. I tell my story because I want people to know that the uninsured are not all poor and thus receiving care in emergency room or getting government subsidies.

I get NOTHING, I qualify for NOTHING. But if I just willy nilly went off getting medical care (like colonoscopy) like insured people, I would become indigent. Uninsured people who can pay, pay $7,000 for a colonoscopy that an insurance company pays $1000.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

T-minus 2 minutes, and counting.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Save it 12Bar, you're talking to not just an adolescent (Jake is about 16) who still thinks he's immortal, but one determined to never make sense. And these trolls would rather see America become like rural India than see any success by the people they hate. When they're digging through trash for food they'll be goading the liberals digging through other dumpsters. Self-interest? Not even on their radar. They're deliberate idiots.

Sorry about the cancer, ten years since sounds pretty encouraging.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 3:31 PM
---------------------------------------
To your second paragraph, thanks for the kind words. Ten years is encouraging, and except for one false alarm which required more surgery looking for a tumor, looks like I'm in remission. But, I avoid getting medical care that might end me in the hospital even for a minute. Docs are reasonable about prices, but the hospital figures out how much to charge you by looking at your credit report. You can easily run up $20k in the hospital in 1 day just in testing. There is no negotiating with the hospital if they figure you have anything they can attach.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

There are still things you can do. Have you taken advantage of health savings accounts? You can usually find Guaranteed (although expensive) insurance. Or move to MA / MD? Here are some helpful hints:

http://www.ehow.com/i/#article_4674389

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Save it 12Bar, you're talking to not just an adolescent (Jake is about 16) who still thinks he's immortal, but one determined to never make sense. And these trolls would rather see America become like rural India than see any success by the people they hate. When they're digging through trash for food they'll be goading the liberals digging through other dumpsters. Self-interest? Not even on their radar. They're deliberate idiots.

Sorry about the cancer, ten years since sounds pretty encouraging.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

37th,

I don't disagree with your proposals. I'd be in heaven if that happened.

What I doubt is your confidence that it could happen. It's not so much as R vs D. It's the insurance companies versus anything that changes their business model. Why do the insurance companies *have* to go along? Or what? That's how they (the companies) look at it.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


As I said in my earlier post, I think that Obama will have to sit down with the Republicans and come up with a real bipartisan health care bill.


That means no massive government program.


No massive taxes.


No new taxes at all.


No personal mandate.


Regulation of the worst abuses of the Health care industry - allow individuals to purchase health care at the same rates as large corporations.


No more denials on pre-existing coverage.


No more cancellations.


Treat the entire country as one whole group.


At this point, I believe the insurance companies have to go for that.


The hidden problem behind all these subsidies is that they just won't work.


People don't have the money to pay for the mandate to begin with.


People don't have health insurance because they cant afford it.

There is a way to get a bipartisan bill.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

You say that like it's a bad thing ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 3:17 PM
---------------------------------------
It's a very bad thing for me. I had cancer 10 years ago and so am uninsurable. What little care I get I pay for totally (no help of any kind). I pay skyhigh prices because that's what you get charged if you have no insurance.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Kinda ironic, huh?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

The skunk complains about the smell.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

You say that like it's a bad thing ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Mother Sheehan is FINALLY back in the news demanding an end to the war. When will pResident Obama meet with her?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street,

You may very well be right that holding the House's 218 is getting more difficult. That means the end of all healthcare reform, including pre-existing conditions, limits, cancelling policies after the fact, etc. Insurance companies will lobby like banshees if they are forced by law to reform policies and "get" nothing for it (like mandates, etc.) Healthcare reform will be dead, dead, dead for 20 years at least.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

CC you proud to be a member of the same ideology as these cretins posting here? Nothing worth reading among the dumbsh|t hooting comments. Is this what you were hoping for? Are you happy how it's turned out? All trolls all the time? Flooding every thread with childish stupid gotcha trash, grade school level remarks. Your kinda peole, dumb Republicans. These unemployed losers are in here saying nothing but "I hate Obama.".

Oh, that's right, so do you, you lousy putz of a propagandist. Hope you lose your job for letting it get like this and you end up on swing shift at the meat packing plant, you're not talented enough to land another gig, doubt even the Times would take you.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Whether Brown or Coakley wins Tuesday, we can all confidently predict that the Tea Party will be even more energized. They smell blood and now, nothing will dissuade them that they are the new kingmakers for the Republicans. Buckle your seatbelts, we're in for a bumpy ride!

I'm curious about MA, does anyone here know how the Tea Party got Brown's candidacy? Was Brown the establishment R's candidate, and *then* theTea Party endorsed him? Or did the Tea Party infiltrate the R's? How did it happen?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 17, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Everyone is focused in on the Senate with the election in Massachusetts.


That makes sense on one level.


HOWEVER, the real situation is in the HOUSE. Members of the House are looking at Massachusetts this week - and they are looking at their districts - and they are wondering if they should stick with Obama's health care plan.


Seriously.

The polls and the story this week in Massachusetts have CHANGED DRAMATICALLY THE BALANCE IN THE HOUSE. Nancy doesn't have her 218 votes anymore. This election is about more than one vote in the Senate. Nancy doesn't have her 218 - even if it is close in Massachusetts this week - those 218 are not going to be there later this week.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I believe that if Scott Brown gets elected on Tuesday, the present version of the health care bill is finished. There are simply too many House members who are looking at their districts and wondering if they should vote for the bill or not.

Obama would be well served to then go for a real bipartisan bill.

Sit down with the Republicans - and negotiate a bill which everyone can vote for. A massive governement program would be out. Massive new taxes out. All new taxes out.

However, the health insurance industry can get properly regulated.


The abuses of the health insurance industry can be stopped. Pre-existing conditions can be required to be covered. There can be restrictions - which allow individuals to purchase insurance at rates given to the large companies - that is important.


There is a great deal that can be done.

I believe the People of Massachusetts, which is a Commonwealth, not a State, will in the end force Obama to adhere to his campaign promise to be bipartisan.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

This place is more and morelike a crack house. Trash everywhere you look. Can't take a step without needing to step over a greasy box of moonbat or a crumpled up carton of 37th, and there's spilled moldy JakeD everywhere.

Ever stop hitting the glass pipe, CC? Ever plan to take out the garbage?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Monday is MLK day, but Tues. the voters of Mass. have a chance to stop Obama. Then I will be singing "free at last, free at last, thank god almighty we are free from Obama at last."

Posted by: kenpasadena | January 17, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Brown doesn't do construction but he drives a pickup truck through town. And he shaves his chest.

Are you sure he isn't gay?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Yeah and Barry was popular a year ago.

And unemployment was below 8 before the Obama effect.

And coakley was ahead in the polls several weeks ago.

Liberals are in the final stage of alcoholism - denial.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Why did they schedule the election for Robert E. Lee's Birthday ?


It is an interesting question.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

broad____joe


I said "latest polls" not one dated January 10, and taken January 2-6

you are being deceptive again.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Repost fromBoston.com
Shel484 wrote:
Dear President Obama,

We are so happy you are coming here tomorrow. We hope you can clear up a few things for us.

1. Martha claims to have brought a billion dollars to MA. If she did where is that money and why did our sales tax have to go up?

2. Martha claims there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan. Why are you sending 30,000 of our young men and women to Afghanistan if there are no more terrorist there?

3. Martha claims that Scott Brown only cares about big business and Wall Street. Why was Martha the one in Washington DC collecting large checks from lobbyist and special interest groups?

4. Martha worked very hard to keep an innocent man (Joe Amoral) in prison after it was proven that he was innocent.
Why did she do that?

5. Martha allowed a man accused of raping a young girl to go without bail, because she thought his family was politically connected. Why did she do that?

6. Martha looked the other way while Diane Wilkerson and Sal Dimasi took money and twisted people’s arms. Do you think that’s good Mr. President?

7. Martha wants to give terrorists that seek to destroy our country the same rights as any other citizen. Why would we want to do that Mr. President?

8. Martha believes that Catholics or anyone with religious beliefs should not be allowed to work in an emergency room.
Do you feel the same way Mr. President?

I am just an ordinary citizen from the great state of Massachusetts. If Martha had only made one of the 8 statements above, maybe I could justify that we all make mistakes. Sadly she has done all eight things I have asked about. The country wants to make this a referendum on your policies. That may be true; however, we in this state need to make it about someone that works for us, not her own self interests.


Posted by: NPagliuca | January 17, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

No problem, 3__. Here's a poll accepted by the MSM journalist community that shows Coakley up 15.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

At this point I think everyone has figured out the value of liberal guarantees, promises and deadlines.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

broad___joe


If you are so smart, explain me this: why, when it became clear that the Massachusetts election would be a sounding on Obama, why did they schedule the election for Robert E. Lee's Birthday ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

broad___joe

Didn't ask you -

Let's get back to Massachusetts?

I'm looking for the latest polls, but I really can not find them.

I supposed it is too difficult to create a model as to who is going to show up on Tuesday to vote, so it is extremely difficult to make any predictions.

All the polls have to have some sort of model to base their demographics on.


The independents want to come out and vote - which is extremely unusual for a special election.


It is exciting.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Hi everyone! Just got back from some shopping. Bought some new gloves for snowboarding tomorrow. They match my "Coakley Sucks" sign.

Here's what I see in my crystal ball:

1. Brown will win by 7
2. Coakley buys season tickets to the Red Sox games. She thinks they're all held in Yankee Stadium. She invites Obama to go along.
3. Brown becomes the talk of the GOP
4. Brown is asked to run in 2012
5. He says "no thanks," but supports Romney
6. Obama decides not to run in 2012. He sees the writing on the wall
7. Hillary, who has been plotting all along, announces she will run for president again
8. Hillary divorces Bill
9. Biden offers to run as her VP. Hillary tells Biden to "iron my shirt"
10. Nobody else wants to run as Hillary's vice president, so she goes it alone. Romney wins by a landslide.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 7:03 PM
_________
You, 3__, Jake, and mooned live in a Rod Serling alternative universe. Coakley will win on Tuesday.

I guarantee it.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

drindl


a time share for a week doesn't count.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

This is not right. If anyone is wondering Robert E. Lee's Birthday is Tuesday.


.


Posted by: 3_thand0street | January 17, 2010 1:54 PM
___________

Don't care.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Dribble poor dear.

Could you surf over to one of your favorite hate sites and press refresh on your talking points And brilliant liberal thoughts. I think five or six identical posts is sufficient to demonstrate you have no capability of original or pertinent thought

but no liberal does.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

thanks for the knowledge, d

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

funny how either Joked, Moonbat or 37 is on here 24 hours a day, in relays. where's scrivener?

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

More lies, intersection, as usual.

'Massachusetts Republican Senatorial candidate Scott Brown has vaulted himself into once-improbable contention in a tight election in part by presenting himself as an everyman. His economic agenda is decidedly centered on small business. His favorite tag line concerns the mileage on his car.

"I live in Wrentham," Brown declared in a debate against his opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley "I drive a truck. And, yes, it has 200,000 miles on it now."

It's been a politically advantageous narrative. But one complicated by Brown's personal finances. According to a review of Brown's 2008 financial disclosure report -- which was filed April 2009 and appears to be the most current document available -- Brown and his wife own (at least then) five separate properties. The list includes a 3,000-square-foot home near a lake in Wrentham, Massachusetts, a condo in Boston and a time share in Aruba.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

There is no reason that the traditional celebrations of Robert E. Lee's Birthday should have been brushed aside.


Washington and Lincoln's Birthday have also been pushed aside.


This is not right. If anyone is wondering Robert E. Lee's Birthday is Tuesday.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

drindl


I think the Red Cross was given over $100 million for its 9/11 efforts - and there was some sort of scandal that they did not spend all the money intended for the 9/11 efforts - and instead they diverted the money elsewhere.

So as a practical matter, your thoughts are baseless.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

As the Plum Line reported yesterday, State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate special election on Tuesday, voted on October 17, 2001 to deny financial aid to Red Cross rescue workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts. As a state representative at the time, Brown was one out of only three legislators who had opposed the overwhelmingly bipartisan measure.

At a campaign rally today in Hyannis, ThinkProgress caught up with Brown for comment on why he voted against the measure:

TP: In 2001, you voted against 9/11 recovery workers, giving them aid, do you have any comment on this story?

BROWN: Yes, it was a time when our budget was down. We had a lot of cuts unfortunately, and we had to take care of our own priorities first.

During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. “Priorities,” indeed.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

AMERICAN'S COMPLACENCY HAS CREATED THIS MESS!!!
LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT AMERICA!!!

www.AMERICAWAKEUPNOW.net

Posted by: AMERICAWAKEUPNOW | January 17, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I am still waiting to see any liberals on here - after taking a look at how hard it is to get help to the Earthquake victims - are willing to apologize to Bush after politicizing the Katrina relief efforts.

Apologies are in order.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama just legalized all the Haitians who were in the US illegally on Tuesday - they can all get green cards now and have work permits for 18 months.


It is amazing how quickly the democrats want to legalize all the illegal immigrants.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Notice that the liberal Democrap Socialist Party--controlled Main Stream Media hasn't mentioned Martha Coakley's part in the Grand Jury trial of Police Officer Keith Winfield case, during her run to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Small wonder too, consitering her sleazy part in it, which would hurt her politically now.
The gist in that 2005 case is that Martha Coakley, who was then the District Attorney for Middlesex County, Ma., had to investigate the criminal complaint of the mother of a 23 month old little girl, who was sexually molested with a hot curling iron by Somerville Police Officer Keith Winfield. The child spent a month in the hospital recovering from massive burns to her genital and anal areas. DA Martha Coakley oversaw the Middlesex Co. Grand Jury that looked into this, but did nothing about it until a month later, and only after the childs mother filed a criminal complaint. Martha Coakley recommended that PO Keith Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail until 10 months later. Keith Winfield remained free on bail for 2 years until Dec. 2007, when Coakley's successor as DA won a conviction and 2 life terms for Winfield. When asked about this case by a reporter, she claimed that she had followed the law, but most people that were familiar with this case also figured out the reason for Martha Coakley's reluctance to prosecute Keith Winfield. It seems Winfields father was a powerful union leader, that had supported Coakley and given her a lot of union cash for her election.

Posted by: armpeg | January 17, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that it's a good idea to keep Martha Coakley off the radio ??? Everytime she goes on, there is a major gaffe.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Scott Brown is an even bigger d*uche bag than I thought -- imagine that!

Check out this video, courtesy of Blue Mass Group, in which, after praising Sarah Palin, Massachusetts Senate hopeful Scott Brown appears to suggest he thinks Barack Obama was born out of wedlock -- a false claim which has been advanced frequently by members of the 'birther' movement.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/does-scott-brown-think-barack-obama-was-born-to-out-of-wedlock-mother.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to what tunafish is selling, it's working person who's skewered by the current maldistribution of wealth in the U.S. This is plain corporate greed not meritocracy:

"CEO Pay Now 821 Times Minimum Wage

Last year, an average chief executive officer (CEO) was paid 821 times as much as a worker earning the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. Put another way, the average CEO earns more before lunch time on the very first day of work in the year than a minimum wage earner earns for the entire year.

The ratio of pay between CEOs and workers at the bottom of the nation’s pay scale wasn’t always so extreme. As recently as 1978, CEOs were paid only 78 times as much as minimum wage earners. Courtesy: USW@Work"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

There is no reason that the traditional celebrations of Robert E. Lee's Birthday should have been brushed aside.

Washington and Lincoln's Birthday have also been pushed aside.

This is not right. If anyone is wondering Robert E. Lee's Birthday is Tuesday.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

As the Plum Line reported yesterday, State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate special election on Tuesday, voted on October 17, 2001 to deny financial aid to Red Cross rescue workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts. As a state representative at the time, Brown was one out of only three legislators who had opposed the overwhelmingly bipartisan measure.

At a campaign rally today in Hyannis, ThinkProgress caught up with Brown for comment on why he voted against the measure:

TP: In 2001, you voted against 9/11 recovery workers, giving them aid, do you have any comment on this story?

BROWN: Yes, it was a time when our budget was down. We had a lot of cuts unfortunately, and we had to take care of our own priorities first.

During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. “Priorities,” indeed.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

broad____joe

You have no respect for the history of our country.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

BJ has refilled his tiny brain at the liberal watering hole Kos.

He now has his chanting lined up for the day.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Look Mr. "3_", I'm not celebrating Robert E. Lee's birthday. Nor am I wasting a millisecond honoring the birthdays of George Wallace, Stonewall Jackson, "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman, Bull Connor, Audra Shay, James Wenneker Von Brunn, or Senator Theodore Bilbo. My apologies to you and the host. Don't bother saving me a seat at your party.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Daily Kos (Research 2000) says BHO's approval now at 55. His percentage of the vote in 2008 was 53% so he has gone UP by 3%, contrary to what his enemies in the media are pushing.

BTW, some are raising questions about the ARG Brown-is-ahead polling. It seems ARG came up next to last in an objective rating of pollsters. Thus some feel ARG's numbers are, uh, well, bogus.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_pollsters_rating_the_i.php

Also, from DailyKos:

A mailing "takes to task a failed Brown-sponsored amendment in the legislature exempting medical personnel from informing rape victims about the availability of the morning-after pill. The brutal headline of the mailer: "1,736 Women Were Raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown Wants Hospitals To Turn Them All Away.""

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/15/825552/-MA-Sen:-Final-Days-Bring-Tight-Polls,-Flurry-of-Activity

It's important Coakley didn't know who a loudmouthed former pitcher was, but this Brown information isn't? Oh well.

34, 35, 36, __, 38, 39...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't like how they have crushed Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday into one generic "President's Day" - We have lost the personalities of Washington and Lincoln - the stories are lost.

The present format just does not work.

Something should be done.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Robert E. Lee's Birthday is this week - there is no reason that the traditional celebration of that holiday has to be thrown aside.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Today is Day 5 of the Earthquake relief - I hope the liberals take a look at the monumental hurdles in place to bringing relief to somewhere on a moments' notice - and reflect.


I believe that at this point in the Katrina disaster, the liberals started to blame Bush for everything.


Blame Bush for not having everyone out of New Orleans, and almost blamed him for not even having the city rebuilt in a week.


Take a look at what is going on in Haiti - and think back to the partisan attacks around New Orleans and Katrina.


I believe the liberals owe Bush an apology.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Today is Day 5 of the Earthquake relief - I hope the liberals take a look at the monumental hurdles in place to bringing relief to somewhere on a moments' notice - and reflect.


I believe that at this point in the Katrina disaster, the liberals started to blame Bush for everything.


Blame Bush for not having everyone out of New Orleans, and almost blamed him for not even having the city rebuilt in a week.


Take a look at what is going on in Haiti - and think back to the partisan attacks around New Orleans and Katrina.


I believe the liberals owe Bush an apology.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Which "Republicans" are Podesta referring to who "admitted" Obama either saved or created one and one-half million jobs?! Hair's breath from affordable healthcare. Hughes snacked him down hard.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Who cares about Curt Schilling?

I care about health care, global warming, fair distribution of wealth, and world peace. I don't care about fistbumps, whitey tapes, flagpins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, or "bitter." And what's more, nobody else does. These are cover issues to hide one's racial animus towards the the first black President of the United States. I hope the New York Times didn't waste time today on this Schilling nonsense. Pushing this fake controversy is really beneath the Washington Post.

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

fair distribution of wealth? The only fair distribution of wealth is by the person or business that made it, libtard id!ot.

Get a job, work a little.

Posted by: twotimetuna | January 17, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Who cares about Curt Schilling?

I care about health care, global warming, fair distribution of wealth, and world peace. I don't care about fistbumps, whitey tapes, flagpins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, or "bitter." And what's more, nobody else does. These are cover issues to hide one's racial animus towards the the first black President of the United States. I hope the New York Times didn't waste time today on this Schilling nonsense. Pushing this fake controversy is really beneath the Washington Post

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

fair distribution of wealth? The only fair distribution of wealth is by the person who made the money libtard.

Posted by: twotimetuna | January 17, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Who cares about Curt Schilling?

I care about health care, global warming, fair distribution of wealth, and world peace. I don't care about fistbumps, whitey tapes, flagpins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, or "bitter." And what's more, nobody else does. These are cover issues to hide one's racial animus towards the the first black President of the United States. I hope the New York Times didn't waste time today on this Schilling nonsense. Pushing this fake controversy is really beneath the Washington Post

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

fair distribution of wealth? The only fair distribution of wealth is by the person who made the money libtard.

Posted by: twotimetuna | January 17, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

CNN poll on mtp.

49 percent consider Barry a failure.

50 percent would vote for someone else.

Figured out empty suit that quickly.

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

MSNBC reported only 39% would vote for obozo the lying clown again if the election was a do-over and you know MSNBC is totally in the bag for obozo. The obozo administration has MSNBC on speed dial, FACT.

Posted by: twotimetuna | January 17, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Moonbat:

Presidents Bush and Clinton did good on MTP too.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Jake

That actually is another point - Curt Shilling was mentioned for a while as a potential candidate in this race - so Coakley is showing a cluelessness to the potential candidates who could have been in her own race.

I don't get it.

Why is her staff even allowing her on the radio now??? All she is doing is producing soundbites for the internet.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I care about Curt Schilling (I wanted HIM to run against Coakley). As for alleged "racial animus towards the the [SIC] first black President of the United States" that's not my motivation at all.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

CNN poll on mtp.

49 percent consider Barry a failure.

50 percent would vote for someone else.

Figured out empty suit that quickly.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Who cares about Curt Schilling?

I care about health care, global warming, fair distribution of wealth, and world peace. I don't care about fistbumps, whitey tapes, flagpins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, or "bitter." And what's more, nobody else does. These are cover issues to hide one's racial animus towards the the first black President of the United States. I hope the New York Times didn't waste time today on this Schilling nonsense. Pushing this fake controversy is really beneath the Washington Post.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Today is Day 5 of the Earthquake relief - I hope the liberals take a look at the monumental hurdles in place to bringing relief to somewhere on a moments' notice - and reflect.


I believe that at this point in the Katrina disaster, the liberals started to blame Bush for everything.


Blame Bush for not having everyone out of New Orleans, and almost blamed him for not even having the city rebuilt in a week.

Take a look at what is going on in Haiti - and think back to the partisan attacks around New Orleans and Katrina.

I believe the liberals owe Bush an apology.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

John Heilemann on Chris Matthews this morning predicted that Harold Ford WILL run for New York's Senate seat! Chris even said that "Martha Coakley is the canary in the mine." I am still predicting Brown wins with a slight majority.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse


She volunteered her ignorance - on a topic she was attempting she knew something about.


See foxxy"s diatribe on economics.

You libs need to surf over to firedog and find out what you are supposed to think and say today.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't use the phrase "gang bang" (keep in mind that I am the only one here pushing for Palin -- a FEMALE no less -- to run against Obama ; )

Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll just tell you: knowing the price of a gallon of milk is just as significant as knowing which team Schilling played with.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers

Martha Coakley brought up the entire baseball subject - she was attempting to slam Rudy Guiliani for being a Yankee fan who campaigned in Massachusetts. -

Then Coakley - without any prompting or questioning - made the comment about Shilling herself.


She volunteered her ignorance - on a topic she was attempting she knew something about.


I still would like everyone to discuss her comment that Catholics "should not work in emergency rooms."


WHY? Because this comment shows how liberals take their silly ideas to ridiculous ends - like Obama releasing terrorists because his staff thinks they might lose a motion in Court.

We have place massive burdens on our 18-years - sending them to Afghanistan to catch terrorists and die.


NOW Obama wants to say "let's release those terrorists because the paperwork isn't good enough."


This is a disgrace - it is a slap in the face to anyone who has signed up to defend this country since 9/11.


It is extremely offensive.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 17, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Jake, I understood your reference to Bush Senior. The reporter was taking a jab at a millionaire who seemed out-of-touch during what used to be our bench mark for post-war financial pain.

I feel that the media gang bang (and the one here) about Schilling is more about belittling a girl than it is about political dialogue.

I was recently teased at the local pub because I didn't know what "the river" was in poker. I could have made a Cribbage or Bridge joke back at them, but not knowing what a river is doesn't make me less than them, just as not knowing whether it is Curt or Kurt would not make Coakley less sound a candidate.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 17, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I guess. Did you get your talking points on the ARG poll yet?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Here's some fact-based analysis of the Coakley race from Washington insider John Podesta. Oddly, he doesn't mention the "Coakley doesn't know who Schlling is" game-changer. How did you miss that, John?

"Top Democratic operative John Podesta expressed cautious optimism on Saturday that the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, would defeat Republican Scott Brown in Tuesday’s special election, despite running what he called a “lackluster campaign.”
....
Podesta served as White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton and now runs the Center for American Progress, which has become a powerhouse liberal Democratic think tank over the last few years.

He said that the flood of national Democratic resources into the state, to run television ads and organize get out the vote efforts, would likely combine with President Obama’s visit to the state Sunday afternoon to give Coakley the edge."

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/16/john-podesta-martha-coakley-will-win-in-massachusetts-despite-lackluster-campaign/

Sounds good to me, John. Welcome to D.C., Senator Coakley.
__________

BTW, a new Ross Messin poll based on five robocalls to landphones in Mayberry, NC, shows Brown up 60%. It seems only Miss Crump voted for Coakley. Oh well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Have you ever posted as "DrainYou" or "mikeinmidland"? Just wondering. Back on topic, if Brown wins on Tuesday, I will be ending my boycott of Boston. How is your boycott of Glen Beck doing?

http://colorofchange.org/

"Hang in there" wherever you are.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 7:39 AM
____________

Answer to the first pair of questions: no.

As for Beck, last time I checked, no mainstream blue chip advertiser was sponsoring his show. Only the low rent guys and sponsors related to MurdochWorld, i.e., the Wall Street Journal, are still there as far as we know. If Beck's network wants to subsidize his hate programming that's their business, I guess.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 17, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Did anyone else watch MTP this morning?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

I already addressed those points yesterday. Shouldn't you be at MoveOn.org making calls to MA Dems pleading for them to not vote for Brown? BTW: how is your boycott of Glenn Beck going?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

There's just 48 hours of campaigning left in the Massachusetts Senate special election ... will Obama make or break it for Croakley?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Yes, he's Wall Street's boy, all right:

'Also during the same period, he was busy fighting for tax subsidies for corporate interests. According to a 2002 article in the Lowell Sun, Brown scored a perfect pro-corporate tax subsidy rating in the months following his anti-9/11 rescue workers vote.'

what clueless saps his supporters are.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

As the Plum Line reported yesterday, State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate special election on Tuesday, voted on October 17, 2001 to deny financial aid to Red Cross rescue workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts. As a state representative at the time, Brown was one out of only three legislators who had opposed the overwhelmingly bipartisan measure.

At a campaign rally today in Hyannis, ThinkProgress caught up with Brown for comment on why he voted against the measure:

TP: In 2001, you voted against 9/11 recovery workers, giving them aid, do you have any comment on this story?

BROWN: Yes, it was a time when our budget was down. We had a lot of cuts unfortunately, and we had to take care of our own priorities first.


During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. “Priorities,” indeed.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Today a drone killed 12 people not on the list of targets.

This is the zeal of the liberals to look tough.

Is this better or worse than waterboarding?

The nyslimes is busy confronting poll results they can't abide.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

Apart from Curt Schilling saying exactly that, my question was

Something "inconsequential" like, say, how much a gallon of milk costs?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

PS. The police endorsed Brown. They know her best.

Liberals admire failure now and unnsuccess. Good news for Barry that.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Curt weighs in:

if you don't know what the &&&& is going on in your own state.


As for the all night bull session. I don't think anyone is surprised that ultra liberals don't know a thing about economics. You may want to keep that to yourself. Same goes for military strategy.

Was your degree, if you even have one, in communications too, like all great liberal thinkers. Or did you drop out to roadie for the band like drindl?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 17, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I don't think a woman who is married to police officer and has been an ADA/DA/AG since 1986 can be called out-of-touch with her constituents.

I also admire Coakley for her lack of assets, as shown in even her revised filings. For the past 23 years she has been serving her constituency, not lining her pockets with speaking engagements and book tours.

In the meantime, Scott Brown has proved himself to be arguable more Liberal than Coakley. I see that there is a purity test for the GOP, but it changes from election to election. Dede is too liberal, but Scott Brown is just right.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/scott-brown-is-liberal-republican.html

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 17, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

Something "inconsequential" like, say, how much a gallon of milk costs? The larger point was that Coakley (or Bush41 in my example) is out of touch with her prospective constituents. Elections have been won or lost on much less than that.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 7:47 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Have you ever posted as "DrainYou" or "mikeinmidland"? Just wondering. Back on topic, if Brown wins on Tuesday, I will be ending my boycott of Boston. How is your boycott of Glen Beck doing?

http://colorofchange.org/

"Hang in there" wherever you are.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

I still wonder if she would have even won the Dem primary had Curt Schilling run for the GOP side. I assume she wouldn't have made the same "Yankee fan" gaffe if he was her actual opponent, but who knows. Everyone said that he couldn't have won, but I think how close the current race is PROVES my point: anything's possible in politics.

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing Coakley ever got elected to any office. She is clearly a horrible candidate. Very dumb.

The Massachusetts Democratic primary electorate chose wrongly here----nominating a woman who is completely clueless. They had two good candidates in Capuano and Khazei in a 4-candidate primary field, and they picked the clueless stupid one. Amazingly dumb move by the Democratic primary electorate. And the thing is, Coakley is not as liberal as either Khazei or Capuano---so she did not win for idelogical reasons. Very dumb decision by Massachusetts Democrats to choose this totally clueless, obviously stupid woman as their candidate.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | January 17, 2010 3:03 AM | Report abuse

Sorry but I do see one point I need to expand on, why this is more important in the financial sector than it is in businesses that actually, oh, do something useful. 
 
In the financial world the real basis of value isn't material, it's perception.  A financial instrument isn't an ingot of gold, it's a piece of paper that represents agreed-upon value.  Before the sun set on the very first day of finance in the world, I guarantee you someone was trying to skew someone else's perception of something he wanted to be perceived as more valuable.  That's the nature of things.  That's why people advertise. 
 
So in deregulated times it's easier to create false perceptions by misrepresenting data (hi Gracious!), and true to form one of the big culprits in this recession is those outfits that rate the financial robustness of other companies. 
 
And oh, the other reason, the financial markets deal with so flucking much money.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 3:01 AM | Report abuse

OK.  When business is highly regulated and highly taxed it's harder to make money.  Forced to act more ethically and more taxed when they do make money, business managers need to think, if I may coin a phrase, "lean and mean."  They're less reluctant to take irresponsible risks because the potential for actual failure is never far from their minds.  So they are careful in their risks and more modest with their compensation because it takes all the eficiency and reinvestment they can manage to stay ahead.
 
Put a negative sign in front of all that in periods of low taxation and lax regulation.  Leanness and meanitude are replaced by profligacy and daring.  Awash in profit and keeping all of it, exhuberance replaces prudence, the investments become loose, failure seems absurd.  Without regulations on behavior businesses start cutting corners, the managers get full of themselves from awarding themselves so much money and believing their own BS that the culture becomes giddy and heady. 
 
And here's where it tangents economic theory: Republicans even more than the rest of us, subjected to thirty steady years of Grover Norquist doctrinal repetition about the magic of the marketplace, believe that deregulations liberates some animistic ghost in the financial machine that does things in defiance of all laws of probability not to mention simple arithmetical sense.  Anyway, whatever, the point is that they believe in creating the conditions that encourage businesses to behave profligately and irresponsibly.  And unethically.
 
Finally, Bush believed all that market BS and governed that way.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 2:50 AM | Report abuse

"DDAWD: that would be a trvially easy challenge using nothing closer to economic theory than a few simple observations of human nature. Unless you want to claim that simple psychology and arithmetic fall under the umbrella of economic theory."

Then do it...

Posted by: DDAWD | January 17, 2010 2:19 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD: that would be a trvially easy challenge using nothing closer to economic theory than a few simple observations of human nature. Unless you want to claim that simple psychology and arithmetic fall under the umbrella of economic theory.

I believe in accounting, I believe in arithmetic, I believe that the Santa Fe School of Stuart Kaufmann shows great promise and in a century might yield a viable economics worthy of being called a science. And it was reading Kaufmann's critique of mainsteam economics' simplifying assumptions that led me to share his belief that they are entirely invalidating.

When people talk about incentives, when they talk about making major changes in behavior through incremental changes to the tax code, when they talk about market forces, I think it's 100% crap.

And when they talk about supply and demand being deterministic on any scale larger than a farmer's market, I presume idiocy.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Jrosco: fellow Seattleite here (Woodinville, actually), not a sports fan and uncomprehending of professional sports allegiances. But.

It seems to me that anyone politically shallow enough to change a vote for so tangential a reason is someone most unlikely to vote in a non-presidential in the first place.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Frank Rich on Michael Steele, the 'baggers, and the Reid non-story:
 
"The Democrats’ efforts to counter the deprivation and bitterness spawned by the Great Recession are indeed timid and imperfect. The right has a point when it says that the Senate health care votes of Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were bought with pork. But at least their constituents can share the pigout. Hustlers like Steele and Palin take the money and run. All their followers get in exchange is a lousy tea party T-shirt. Or a ghost-written self-promotional book. Or a tepid racial sideshow far beneath the incendiary standards of the party whose history from Strom to “macaca” has driven away nearly every black American except Steele for the past 40 years."
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17rich.html?hp
 
While this "space" had six hyperventilating posts about it.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 17, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Evening everyone. Interesting discussion on Schilling. Margaret I always enjoy your posts, but I have to quibble (for fun) with your post at 3:26 p.m. today. While not a huge issue, I agree with Chris that the Schilling comment does show her to be out of touch with her constituency -- there is no question in my mind that she will lose some votes, which is the point of Chris' post.

The entire New England area is crazy insane about the Red Sox -- I've visited the area during baseball season and been in the seats here in Seattle listening to the Red Sox Nation drown out the Mariners fans -- there is no other team that attends games at opposing stadiums like the Red Sox fans. If you live in Massachusetts, it is unfathomable to know know automatically who Curt Schilling is. I mean, my Mom in her 70's is not a sports fan at all, but if she hears the names Ken Griffey Jr., Ichiro or Edgar Martinez, she knows who they are from simply paying attention to the local culture around her.

So I think it makes sense to post a blog entry pointing out that Ms. Coakley isn't doing herself any favors on this subject that is actually very important to many of her constituents -- there is no question that the Red Sox are ingrained into the very fabric of the New England culture -- for over 100 years -- you can't go anywhere in New England without being flooded with Red Sox paraphernalia.

Posted by: jrosco3 | January 17, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, Chris C actually understated the nature of the gaffe. he said she seemed uncertain as to who Schilling is.

Problem is, there was no uncertainty in what she said. She came across as completely certain he's a Yankee fan.

Now if you and I were the only two voters, this wouldn't make an ounce of difference. But I do see this as potentially resonating with a good number of people.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 17, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Exactly...

"I don’t know what’s worse: that Scott Brown tried to weaken a law guaranteeing emergency contraception to rape victims, or that he now claims he can’t remember doing it. Or maybe it’s that, now that he’s running for US Senate, he’s dragging his daughters into the controversy to protect himself."

"I can’t believe what we’re doing to this bill," said then-minority leader Brian Lees, who called it, "a poison pill amendment. . . . I can’t believe that you’re going to say [this] to your constituents who’ve been through a traumatic experience."

"Senator Richard Tisei said: "I can’t recall another instance where we’ve basically said, ‘This is the law, and it’s OK not to follow it.’ . . . It doesn’t make any sense."

"Now, you’d think a state senator would remember being publicly reamed by members of his own party, right? Or recall his own shaky defense of his proposal, which he said he put forward "just for conversation." Nope. On Tuesday night, When Janet Wu of WCVB-TV asked him if he’d sponsored the amendment, Brown said: "I have to check. I don’t know. It was so long ago."
.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/14/browns_failure/


Give Brown points for taking enough of a break from hiding behind his daughters to say that much, I guess, but it would help if it had been anything other than an obvious lie to cover for pushing unpardonable legislation just 5 years ago.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

't's embarrassing that someone who could make as good an appearance on PBS as Cillizza did would then turn around with a post braying about the Schilling comment. That's not journalism.'

yeah, it's just sad and depressing.

Posted by: drindl | January 17, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

"Actually DDAWD the origin of my disdain for economics might surprise you...I get it from others like my best friend at work, who has a Ph.D. In it. He says it's mostly crap too.

He's the third Econ doctorate in my acquaintance to say so.

Posted by: Noacoler"

I assume that you hold Bush responsible for the recession, right?

If so, explain how this is so without the use of any economic theory.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Really need to wonder why the wingnuts side with the healthcare insurers. Do they think they'll never get sick? When they get denied coverage for some BS reason are they going to cheer about it?

And to think these are the people who think they understand self-interest.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

It's not surprising that the Wingnut stooges on here were hoping that this race would stay under the radar. Scotty Brown is a far right wing knuckle-dragger who is trying (and failing) to pass himself off as a moderate.


THE BOSTON GLOBE DETAILS MORE LIES FROM REPUBLICAN SCOTT BROWN!


Yvonne Abraham details the Republican response to the anti-emergency contraception amendment:
*


"I don’t know what’s worse: that Scott Brown tried to weaken a law guaranteeing emergency contraception to rape victims, or that he now claims he can’t remember doing it. Or maybe it’s that, now that he’s running for US Senate, he’s dragging his daughters into the controversy to protect himself."

"I can’t believe what we’re doing to this bill," said then-minority leader Brian Lees, who called it, "a poison pill amendment. . . . I can’t believe that you’re going to say [this] to your constituents who’ve been through a traumatic experience."

"Senator Richard Tisei said: "I can’t recall another instance where we’ve basically said, ‘This is the law, and it’s OK not to follow it.’ . . . It doesn’t make any sense."

"Now, you’d think a state senator would remember being publicly reamed by members of his own party, right? Or recall his own shaky defense of his proposal, which he said he put forward "just for conversation." Nope. On Tuesday night, When Janet Wu of WCVB-TV asked him if he’d sponsored the amendment, Brown said: "I have to check. I don’t know. It was so long ago."
.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/14/browns_failure/


Give Brown points for taking enough of a break from hiding behind his daughters to say that much, I guess, but it would help if it had been anything other than an obvious lie to cover for pushing unpardonable legislation just 5 years ago.

Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey DrainYou- Even your uberliberal version of the NY Post knows Brown is AGAINST healthcare reform AS Currently Proposed so
go Drain the monster and stop spreading manure-

"By The Numbers: A Brown Win Could Kill Health Care
First Posted: 01-15-10 01:36 PM | Updated: 01-15-10 02:10 PM
from the Huffington Post

Democratic leaders freaked out on Friday as they suddenly realized that nearly a year's worth of health-care negotiations could be tripped up by an improbably close Senate race in Massachusetts.

A poorly run campaign and a toxic political environment have imperiled what should have been a smooth path for Attorney General Martha Coakley to take over the seat long held by Ted Kennedy. But now, if Republican Scott Brown emerge victorious -- and, in the process, reduces the Senate Democratic Caucus from 60 to 59 -- the numbers will be stacked against health care's passage.

"It's not an encouraging thought," said one health care activist. "We're f---d," added another"

Posted by: thecannula | January 16, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Tell us about your childhood.

==

I was younger than now, and smaller.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Actually DDAWD the origin of my disdain for economics might surprise you...I get it from others like my best friend at work, who has a Ph.D. In it. He says it's mostly crap too.

He's the third Econ doctorate in my acquaintance to say so.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

GOPer Scott Brown Running A Misleading Campaign!


Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe:


"Brown is allegedly for health care reform, except he doesn’t support the historic health care reform legislation that is on the brink of passage in Washington and was Kennedy’s life quest."


"Brown supports Roe v. Wade, except that a prominent anti-abortion advocacy group backs him as a "pro-life vote in the Senate."


"Brown dispatched his 21-year old daughter to attack Coakley for stating the truth: In 2005, Brown sponsored a legislative amendment that would have allowed medical personnel to deny emergency contraception to rape victims if it "conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief." The amendment didn’t pass, but Brown owned it. It was attached to a bill that he ultimately voted for, which required emergency rooms to provide contraceptives to rape victims. "

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/14/browns_glossy_veneer_conceals_misleading_campaign/


Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

WHAT -- ME WORRY ABOUT HAITI?

Somehow the notion of "W" pitching for disaster relief contributions doesn't quite nudge the credibility meter.

The G.H.W. Bush-Clinton combo delivered. The Bushie half of this duo might prompt some potential donors to wonder what Obama was thinking... maybe even to give to a charity other than one presided over by this iteration of Bush-Clinton

Don't expect a huge response from residents of New Orleans and environs.

Perhaps President Obama needs an in-house consumer marketing czar?

***

SECRETIVE BUSH-ERA HOMELAND SECURITY-LED PROGRAM TORTURES, IMPAIRS 'TARGETED' U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, COMMUNITY WATCH VIGILANTE TERRORISM

• A government atrocity that makes Watergate look like just another black bag job.

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?"

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 16, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd, pretending to know what you do not is not limited to Palin and Beck fretting about the Fed not paying taxes on its surplus, I guess.

My youngest daughter tweaks her boyfriend, the NFL fan, by calling the Viking QB "Fav-ray". That is an acceptable level of pretend knowledge, IMHO. Of course, my daughter can do no wrong in my eyes. I hope Ms. Coakley's father is as accepting.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 16, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Poor ped. Staring at the screen waiting for anyone to post so he can flood the thread.

Ok. Here you go.

Tell us about your childhood.

Someone else will have to babysit from here on out.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 16, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

CF8, I listened to the clip, it was actually irritating how she said that. First she called him a Yankee fan. Host said "really?" she again said yes with full conviction. He then was like "Schilling, Red Sox legend with the bloody sock?" and she was like, well, he's not there anymore.

I don't care when people don't know about sports. I like them, I know who Curt Schilling is, but it's cool that she doesn't.

But it does bother me when people talk with conviction about stuff they know nothing about. Whether it be her on Schilling or you on economics. Her conviction on something that she's dead wrong about is really grating to me. Obviously it wouldn't change my vote, but it does make me think a little less of her.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

@margaretmeyers: so Cillizza still does well before a camera?  It was his campaign time videos that gave me my initial good impression of him, now that you mention it I don't think I've ever been impressed by what he writes and I'm sure as hell unimpressed by the sickeningly skewed GOP boosterism he does now.
 
That actually makes sense, more than the idea that he had a cerebrectomy on Jan. 20 of last year.
 
But yeah, making fun of the woman for not having the membership of some ball team committed to memory, that's beyond childish.  Feels like grade school.
 
Not the only thing about this blog that reminds me of grade school.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

I'd hate sports too if my team was the Seahawks.


GO SAINTS WOOOOOOOOOOO
IN
YO
FACE!!!!!

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Save it cannula I never cared a whit about sports one way or another. If you want to wear color-matched logowear and hang with chipmunks wearing the same two colors from head to toe and describe to each other your homoerotic enthusiasm for a bunch of steroid clowns who alwhereat the same two colors don't let me stop you but dint expect me to give a damn. I follow physics, not sports.

I have a Tom Brady Movado watch, which isbthe closest I ever came to sports. Don't even know what team he's on but it's a fine timepiece.

If Coakley doesn't know what team that guy us on I would say she has the right gaps in her education. If she knows zip about that economics crap you guys always squeal about, even better.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Jake@3:33, I don't think the two situations are similar. Yes, both sides tail the other candidate, eagerly hoping for a "Macaca Moment." This wasn't one. This is just the boys grabbing something inconsequential and running with it, especially fun when they can mock the girls. It's embarrassing that someone who could make as good an appearance on PBS as Cillizza did would then turn around with a post braying about the Schilling comment. That's not journalism.

I'm looking forward to Tuesday. I don't think the Democrats of Massachusetts are going to be stampeded by all the shouting on the internet. I'm think NY CD 23.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 16, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Moonbat- quick looking in the mirror- got the game on my plasma, my beautiful wife next to me, and the Tender Trap cued up for halftime- just tapping on the MacBook Pro for your education

Posted by: thecannula | January 16, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

If you think not knowing a thing about a topic keeps liberals quiet, you are new to DC.

And this blog.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 16, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

We now enter the lonely hearts all night trolling session

have fun loser.

Maybe that blow up doll would suit you.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 16, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Hey Noacoler- If the Democratic Candidate doesn't follow the Sox she shouldn't make believe she does- she loses face and credibility- next thing you know she'll make believe that she doesn't know that in the 3000+ page health care reform acts being considered, there are gatekeepers for Medicare who don't require an MD degree. Does she or doesn't she? Can't tell- she speaks when she has no idea.
Curt wasn't any old ballplayer by the way, his pitching through injury was a national news story. His bloody sock is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. She should have known he wasn't a Yankee fan OR She should have kept her mouth shut.

Posted by: thecannula | January 16, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Become = necons darn spellchecker winky winky winky

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

You're a perfect example of the failed public school system. You should apply to be their poster boy.

Says the pinhead who posts the same stupid blowup doll joke seven times.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 8:55 PM


I actually posted it 10 times. But since you can't count that high, I'll forgive you. You should reconsider sending me the Godiva chocolates.

Gotta go! My boyfriend's here. See you guys tomorrow after I get back from snowboarding. I'll let you know how it went.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Remember the the goobs were in power and we thought the become were nuts? They were nothing worse than impractical compared to the invertebrates that pass for conservatives now.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza comes to work on a weekend to do a column about not what what team some ball player belongs to.

Extra Extra read all about it.

And to think this is the paper that broke Watergate. Hiatt should be put in a pillory and whipped.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey foxxy

didn't your mother, between the shame and embarassement, ever tell you not to put things in your mouth when you don't know where they've been?

Must taste like sh!t.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 16, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

You're a perfect example of the failed public school system. You should apply to be their poster boy.
 
==
 
Says the pinhead who posts the same stupid blowup doll joke seven times.
 
I don't care if you stay or leave, you're not any worse than your usual monikers.  It really is quite the phenomenon how not a single right wing poster online anywhere exhibits even average intelligence.  They're all these rug-chewing homeschooled types.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Any Candidate for the US Senate from the great state of Massachusetts who thinks a hero of their major league baseball team's first world series victory in 88 years is a fan of their arch enemy does not have enough sense to stop talking when she just doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. That's just the kind of stupidity that has us stuck at 10% unemployment.

I wonder who's blood she thinks is on the bloody sock that's in the Hall of Fame? I'm afraid to ask.

Posted by: thecannula | January 16, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

i wonder if the President's desperate, last minute trip to Mass. with bases covered (Coakley "requested" that he come to make a fruitless attempt to rescue Heath Care Reform) is being underwritten by the tens of millions of wall street profits made by his last desperate foundering democratic candidate, John Corzine?
Hey Obama, how did that one work out for ya?

Posted by: thecannula | January 16, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

At a minimum it is now Chrissy foxxy hour so some recipes and advice for the lonely is surely on line.

Who said my predictions aren't accurate.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 16, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Pravda endorses Stalin!

Posted by: Moonbat | January 16, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Is this place a support group for the feeble-minded? Between thus Suzy cretin, the indefatigable 37rh, and the sanctioned trolls there's not enough brain for a halfway decent field mouse

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 8:21 PM

Noacoler, I feel sorry for you. But if you really want me to leave, FedEx me a five pound box of Godiva chocolates (dark chocolate pieces only!). I'll leave for two weeks. Promise.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse


'I already tried. You have to have a Negro accent.

Posted by: SuzyCcup '

I'm sorry to ask, but what kind of sick f*ck would spend their saturday night posting stuff like this? what kind of s*x toy would use this as their moniker? is this republican family values?

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

More Bad News For Far Right Wing Nutjob Scott Brown!

The Boston Globe Endorses Martha Coakley!

Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 8:13 PM


Hey buddy, where do you live? Outer Mongolia?? Did you know that the Globe is to the left of the NY Times?

You're a perfect example of the failed public school system. You should apply to be their poster boy.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Is this place a support group for the feeble-minded? Between thus Suzy cretin, the indefatigable 37rh, and the sanctioned trolls there's not enough brain for a halfway decent field mouse

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I just returned from a productive day of honeydos and have a moment. Jake, I read your response to me, and I see the principle you are defending on the basis that two wrongs do not make a right.

But you are misstating the concept that is being floated. The bonuses are not to be taxed. Instead, the twenty largest banks that took bailout money will be charge a fee until the bail out is repaid. It seems to me that is a businesslike method- If I had bailed them out, I would have wanted a choice of preferred debt or equity [that is what Warren Buffett does]. But an equity position for government should be temporary in a capitalist country. One BIG problem that we fiscal conservatives had with GWB's proposed privatization of SS was that the SSA would control most of American large business in ten years. So it is with these banks. Setting a fee structure for repayment is the capitalist norm.

At least, that is my position, as one of the creditors of the twenty largest banks.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 16, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

More Bad News For Far Right Wing Nutjob Scott Brown!


The Boston Globe Endorses Martha Coakley!


Voters who want to cast a critical eye on Washington without destroying the Democratic coalition should go for Coakley. Her quiet diligence in pursuing some of the most thankless, but deeply important, tasks in prosecuting child abusers, scouring the fine print of Big Dig contracts to bring back hundreds of millions of dollars, and securing $60 million from Goldman Sachs for its subprime mortgage abuses, contrasts sharply with Brown's five-year record of voting no in a state Senate run by the opposite party.


"She is by far the more qualified candidate, in experience and judgment. She has prosecuted hundreds of criminals and helped coordinate plans to protect the state from terrorist threats. As attorney general, she's returned $1 billion to state coffers."
.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/globe_endorsement_martha_coakley_for_senate/


And they make the case against Brown:


"A vote for Brown is hardly a symbolic protest against congressional gridlock and the ways of Washington. It's a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That's what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate."
.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/globe_endorsement_martha_coakley_for_senate/

Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I see the buffer on the liberal brain is overflowing until Nancy releases another email. The loons are stuck with reposting the same idiocy until then. Maybe drindl could paste from huff or kos or firedog.

At a minimum it is now Chrissy foxxy hour so some recipes and advice for the lonely is surely on line.

Maybe dawd could help with avoiding alligators or some other area of expertise.

Has anyone noticed all they do is carp at others. What do you expect from a bunch of HS dropouts. So far no evidence of a single degree
in anything beyond public communications majors.

No wonder they envy everyone with proper credentials. Something that is forever beyond them.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 16, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, if you want to make calls to Mass, you can go to Obama's website and get hooked up with a calling list.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2010 7:44 PM


I already tried. You have to have a Negro accent.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, if you want to make calls to Mass, you can go to Obama's website and get hooked up with a calling list.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I hear that Conan has decided to leave NBC. He's taking Martha Coakley with him. If nothing else, she's worth a laugh.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Schempf made it all the way to high school. Your parents must be so proud. Are you the first in your family. In your species?

Posted by: Moonbat | January 16, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

worth a repeat:

Anti American Teabagger Scott Brown Voted Against Giving Aid To 9/11 Recovery Workers!


One month after the September 11th attacks, Scott Brown was one of only three Massachusetts State Representatives to vote against a bill to provide financial assistance to Red Cross workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts, we’ve learned.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/scott-brown-voted-against-giving-help-to-911-recovery-workers/


So why did Brown vote against 9/11 workers?


The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/scott-brown-voted-against-giving-help-to-911-recovery-workers/


So in the aftermath of worst terror attack in American history, crazy teabagger simpleton Scott Brown put his far right-wing vision of fiscal austerity ahead of helping the nation's recovery efforts. That's pretty much the definition of radical conservativism -- and it reflects the exact opposite of the values that Ted Kennedy fought for his entire life.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Hi everyone! Just got back from some shopping. Bought some new gloves for snowboarding tomorrow. They match my "Coakley Sucks" sign.

Here's what I see in my crystal ball:

1. Brown will win by 7
2. Coakley buys season tickets to the Red Sox games. She thinks they're all held in Yankee Stadium. She invites Obama to go along.
3. Brown becomes the talk of the GOP
4. Brown is asked to run in 2012
5. He says "no thanks," but supports Romney
6. Obama decides not to run in 2012. He sees the writing on the wall
7. Hillary, who has been plotting all along, announces she will run for president again
8. Hillary divorces Bill
9. Biden offers to run as her VP. Hillary tells Biden to "iron my shirt"
10. Nobody else wants to run as Hillary's vice president, so she goes it alone. Romney wins by a landslide.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Anti American Teabagger Scott Brown Voted Against Giving Aid To 9/11 Recovery Workers!


One month after the September 11th attacks, Scott Brown was one of only three Massachusetts State Representatives to vote against a bill to provide financial assistance to Red Cross workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts, we’ve learned.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/scott-brown-voted-against-giving-help-to-911-recovery-workers/


So why did Brown vote against 9/11 workers?


The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/scott-brown-voted-against-giving-help-to-911-recovery-workers/


So in the aftermath of worst terror attack in American history, crazy teabagger simpleton Scott Brown put his far right-wing vision of fiscal austerity ahead of helping the nation's recovery efforts. That's pretty much the definition of radical conservativism -- and it reflects the exact opposite of the values that Ted Kennedy fought for his entire life.


Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Then even after the Detroit Bomber hit, Obama still wanted to release 45 more terrorists to Yemen -


AND the liberals STILL try to say that Obama is not soft on terrorism.

Bostonians are extremely sensitive toward terrorism because two of the 9/11 planes took off from Boston.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Remember Obama let terrorists go.


Obama released terrorists from Gitmo.


Obama released terrorists and sent them to Yemen right before Obama took off to the golf course in Hawaii.


NOT FOR NOTHING, 18 year old kids signed up for the military and died so that we could catch those terrorists.

Obama is a disgrace. There is no dispute about that. Let's see someone try to defend these actions.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

You ask "How did the democrats get into this pickle?"


Obama totally overreached with this health care bill.


Obama promised to "bring both sides together", to be the "uniter" -


AND to be "bipartisan"


Compare some of Obama's speeches to his actual performance


I don't care if the Republicans may have been initially unwilling to work with Obama - Obama promised to work at it, keep on inviting the Republicans - and to forget a compromise.


Obama is the one who got them into this pickle.

Obama is a FRAUD.

What will save Coakley tomorrow is if Obama announces that he is withdrawing the health care bill - and he will work with the Republicans to get a bill that everyone can agree on.


That will save her.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Hit a nerve, Drain You, keep it up. Notice how Joke is unable to refute anything you or I say.

Scott Brown is a Wall Street wh*re, taking tons of money from the very financial institutions that brought this country down -- and he has promised to protect them from regulation, so they can screw us again. That's what teabagger want apparently -- maybe it's masochism?

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Hit a never, Drain You, keep it up. Notice how Joke is unable to refute anything you or I say.

Scott Brown is a Wall Street wh*re, taking tons of money from the very financial institutions that brought this country down -- and he has promised to protect them from regulation, so they can screw us again. That's what teabagger want apparently -- maybe it's masochism?

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Who but a wingnut would boast about a graduate degree in economics? That's like bragging about spending a decade playing Warcraft.

And JakeD as a lawyer? Judging by his command of logic he couldn't argue that night is darker than day if you spotted him light measurements. He can't even distinguish fact from wishful thinking.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"Zookie is PhD level econ.

go back to sucking the eyes out.

I am at least gratified that the third stooge showed. It wouldn't be the fix without you.

Posted by: drivl "

haha, yeah.

it's great how zook and jaked feel the need to fluff up their credentials for some reason. Yeah, jaked is a Stanford lawyer. zookie is a PhD in economics.

I took an economics class in high school and have never taken a law class, but yet know more econ and law than those two.

But can you reprise that car dealership conspiracy theory? Carolina lost today, so I could use a laugh.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse


Obama has just ordered that all Haitians illegally in the US are now legal and can get a green card to work for the next 18 months.


Watch the boats come here now !!!


I'm not kidding - Obama ordered that all the Haitians illegally in this country can now have work permits.


Ironic - if you are Haitian and you broke the law and you were in the US when the earthquake hit, you get a work visa.


If you are Haitian and you were there when the earthquake hit, no one will let you leave.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Whack-a-doodle Teabagger goon Scotty Brown knows all about deficits. If it wasn't for the Republican adminstrations from the past 25 years that he supported we wouldn't have a deficit problem right now.


Republicans Delivered the Worst Decade in Modern U.S. History !


The Republican Party of No and Obstruction, at least where sending any kind of economic lifelines to the American people are concerned, sure had no problem with turning over our national treasury to the fat cats on Wall St. And the GOP's blind faith in a unfettered free market economy did nothing other than make a handful of wealthy folks much richer while the majority of us grew much poorer. The Reagan/Bush/W. Bush's legacies of failure brought this once great nation to its knees.


At least when W. ran his companies into the ground Daddy's friends would step up and bail junior out. But Daddy's buddies are nowhere to be found now that W. and his GOP drove the country straight to hell. Tragically for the American taxpayers, we, our children, our grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to clean up the squalor. It will take generations to undo the GOP's financial carnage.


A recent article published in the Washington Post reveals that the American worker lost big time during the past decade.


This news should come as no surprise to any hard working middle class American. We have been living the pain for 10 long years.


"The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth. It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable."
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html


The Washington Post also reveals that there has been zero net job creation since December 1999. Conditions have not been this grim for decades. Essentially, the American worker has not had a raise in a very long time.


"Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s."
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html


It's not surprising that the Republican party would be trying to blame their failures on Pres Obama after only 11 months, they're a bunch of sociopathic losers (Scott Brown) who aren't exactly known for taking responsibilty for their actions.

Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


You ask "How did the democrats get into this pickle?"

Obama totally overreached with this health care bill.

Obama promised to "bring both sides together", to be the "uniter" -


AND to be "bipartisan"

Compare some of Obama's speeches to his actual performance

I don't care if the Republicans may have been initially unwilling to work with Obama - Obama promised to work at it, keep on inviting the Republicans - and to forget a compromise.

Obama is the one who got them into this pickle.


Obama is a FRAUD.


What will save Coakley tomorrow is if Obama announces that he is withdrawing the health care bill - and he will work with the Republicans to get a bill that everyone can agree on.


That will save her.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

That post was not directed to "37thand0street". Sorry for the friendly fire ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

broad____joe


For all your complaining about the polling, it appears that Rasmussen was RIGHT that this race was tightening.


So you should apologize.... for living.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

broad____joe


For all your complaining about the polling, it appears that Rasmussen was RIGHT that this race was tightening.


So you should apologize.... for living.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Please PLEASE ignore me, which means actually not referring to me, as that would make my job disproving you even easier.

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - keep on going !!! Don't let them drag you down.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

"Hang in there" wherever you may be.

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Drain: JakeD thinks he can bully people into taking part in his trolls. Just ignore, as you see he's a brainless idiot whose whole life is harassing his superiors online

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

We'll see on Tuesday.

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to love listening to all of the sour sounding Wingnutters cryng in their beer about crazy crap like ACORN and Black FEMA Helicopters etc after they lose this race.


Naked Scotty Brown isn't going to win, mark my words. I don't care how much the nutbags on Planet Wingnuttia want it to happen.
.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo
.

Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

How about Coakley's nitwit comment that there were no more terrorists in Afghanistan?

Could you imagine if Sarah Palin had said anything nearly as stupid as that? Typical liberal hypocrisy, they hold up this drone as a great candidate for Senator!

Now the Democrats are so desperate they are trying to play up that Scott Brown did a centerfold for Cosmo when he was in his 20's....

Meanwhile, who would EVER want to see Coakley naked? NO ONE and that includes HER HUSBAND! LMAO!

Posted by: 1hughjass | January 16, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Don't answer my posts then. I will continue to refute your posts how I see fit. If anyone else has a question about the garbage DrainYou is posting, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow! This almost to easy.....


GOPer Teabagger Scott Brown Not Paying His Taxes!


It is an entirely inappropriate avoidance of responsibility by Brown to stiff the gov't on payroll taxes and unemployment compensation contributions. Anyone who has ever employed others knows that there are specific requirements to be considered an independent contractor. With the exception of a contracted consultant, it is very unlikely that anyone other than the highest level staff members would qualify. This isn't about health insurance. It's about tax evasion.


Mass law is one of the TOUGHEST in the country against the practice of misclassifying employees as contractors, far tougher than the federal government . There's no question in my mind that if all of the staffers are being treated as contractors that they are breaking the law.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/in-ma-sen-race-thats-all-about-health-care-is-goper-brown-providing-coverage-to-staff.php?ref=fpa


Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Don't answer my posts JakeyD, I'm not interested in what a right wing troll who has no life and spends his time harrassing people 24/7 on a public web site has to say.

Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Who CARES what the NYT says about Rasmussen polling?

==

anyone who cares about truth

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

DrainYou:

Do you at least understand the argument that once the government made the mistake of bailing out companies that should have rightly failed, it is another mistake to impose the government's view of what is or isn't a fair bonus structure (as just one example, see drivil's post below that I was talking to mark_in_austin about)? How much more interference with the market are you willing to allow?

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe

Who CARES what the NYT says about Rasmussen polling?

The NYT is the most corrupt (and bankrupt) newspaper in the country! They've had more editorial scandals than Bill Clinton has had girlfriends!

The fact of the matter is, Rasmussen has done the best job predicting the outcome of elections... check out their track record. Who cares if it doesn't meet some arbitrary, libtard polling standard of the NYT... I go w/ the firm that has a history of predicting the most accurate results!

BTW, I'm writing from another of the bluest of blue states - New Jersey... don't forget what recently happened here...

We got sick of arrogant, corrupt and hypocritical tax & spend libtards. Hopefully we've just begun to clean house after flushing that turd Corzine straight into the Passaic!

Posted by: 1hughjass | January 16, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Crazy Teabagger Republican Scott Brown Wants to Protect Biggest Banks and Screw Over American Taxpayers!


Wall Street is planning to hand out six- and seven-figure bonuses, with total pay at banks and securities firms hitting $145 billion.


President Obama released a proposal for a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee to be levied on the biggest banks. It's a good, if limited move. The White House explains:


"The fee will be in place at least 10 years, but even longer if needed to pay back every penny of TARP. This will not be a cost borne by community banks or small firms; only the largest firms with more than $50 billion in assets will be affected. In fact, 60% of the revenue will come from the 10 largest financial firms."
.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-proposes-financial-crisis-responsibility-fee-recoup-every-last-penn


That's to pay back taxpayer money that went to bail out those "too big to fail" banks that threw us into this financial crisis to begin with, you understand.


And Scotty Brown? The Massachusetts Teabagger Republican Senate candidate doesn't want to answer the question in person, but through a spokesman he's willing to say he opposes the new fee on the big banks.
.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/brown_criticize.html


Martha Coakley, by contrast, has been called a "Wall Street scourge" by ABC News for her efforts to hold the big banks accountable for things like subprime mortgages
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoN0POyQPtU

Posted by: DrainYou | January 16, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

WaPo was once a great paper. Under Hiatt it's a bar rag. Fact checkers get fired and a putz like Cillizza gets a disinformation gig

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Economics? Useless pseudoscience. Better to study phrenology.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama has just ordered that all Haitians illegally in the US are now legal and can get a green card to work for the next 18 months.


Watch the boats come here now !!!

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Better here than him actually pounding pavement to GOTV (although his caustic attitude could encourge people to vote FOR Brown ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Democrats moved closer to a final deal on health care reform Thursday — and for some vulnerable members, the end can’t come soon enough. In an emotional talk with other Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee this week, North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy said the protracted debate is hurting him so badly back home that he might as well retire if it drags on much longer.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

He is waiting for another email from Nancy to reply.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

broad___joe


So joe, you have actually deluded yourself into thinking you are performing a community service ????

What a laugh.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Cat got your tongue? Where's the trashing of American Research Group?

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

The doctor said I would need half my brain removed to be like you. three quarters if I strive for DDAWD.

Naming conventions will have to do.

If you were really interested in truth in advertising as you claim, you would have this name.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

margaret and broadway joe -- don't waste your time here. The Post's incessant cheerleading for empty-suit Rs has drawn some of the most obnoxious and mentally deficient posters I have ever read here.

There are other blogs where they moderate and keep out the blatant racists and retards.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 3:44 PM
__________
Gotta disagree, d.

The Washington Post is our national political paper of record. Many people believe what is written here is fact. Since the Post's editing/factchecking process has broken down, it is important for folks like you in the community to call out obvious bias and misinformation when you see it. Hang in there.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 16, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Today's poll from ARG (American Research Group)
Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 3:29 PM


Jake, I like the poll numbers. But there is a better way to see where this race is headed - follow the money. There is a site ( www.intrade.com ), that essentially legitimizes betting by allowing you to buy "shares" in an outcome instead of placing an actual bet on the outcome. Scott Brown shares were selling for about 20 cents two days ago and Martha Coakley shares were going for about 80 cents. The money was on her.
Today, Scott Brown shares go for about 54 cents and Martha's for 48 cents. This is a huge reversal.

Bottom line: the money is betting on Brown. It keeps moving that way. (and I bought only 2000 shares at 20 cents. Darn!)

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

I wasn't equating the two comments. I was equating the facts that someone follows the opposition around with a video camera. In case you didn't read what she was complaining about:

"Clearly there are GOP gnomes who are spending every minute following Coakley around and then writing up releases ..."

KEN33:

We'll see on Tuesday. Will YOU return after that if Brown wins?

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe ANYONE believes the polls that show Brown with the lead. We're talking MASSACHUSETTS here...not some down-south hick state. This is a progressive state. Coakley will win by at least 10 points, guaranteed. There is NO WAY Brown and his cohorts even get close in this race. Massachusetts is not a redneck state, it is a progressive state and one that will continue to move America forward, not the Republican way which is always backwards! I've spoken with friends in Mass. who ALL say this thing has gotten out of hand and the media spin FOR Brown has become bizarre. Talk to your friends. Have you found ANYONE who will vote Brown on Tuesday? I didn't think so. Coakley by at LEAT 10 in this race, maybe as much as 25!

Posted by: KEN33 | January 16, 2010 3:45 PM
_____________________

Cosign. This Brown-is-ahead narrative is almost totally driven by the right wing media, and their MSM enablers. That it made its way into the Washington Post is a sad testament as to how far the Post has fallen. By contrast, the New York Times wanted no part of this fakery.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 16, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

How quickly you've forgotten the "Maccaca" moment (or it's only OK to follow around Republicans?).

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 3:33 PM
________

Equating the nonsense in this "article" with a bigoted politician's vicious, ugly racial slur directed at an Indian American young man regarded within his Northern Virginia community as a virtual prince (he won a scholarship to U.Va. as well) is beyond me.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 16, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Btw, zouk/drivl, since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I appreciate that you admire my posts so much you are trying to pass yourself off as me.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Zookie is PhD level econ.

go back to sucking the eyes out.

I am at least gratified that the third stooge showed. It wouldn't be the fix without you.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe ANYONE believes the polls that show Brown with the lead. We're talking MASSACHUSETTS here...not some down-south hick state. This is a progressive state. Coakley will win by at least 10 points, guaranteed. There is NO WAY Brown and his cohorts even get close in this race. Massachusetts is not a redneck state, it is a progressive state and one that will continue to move America forward, not the Republican way which is always backwards! I've spoken with friends in Mass. who ALL say this thing has gotten out of hand and the media spin FOR Brown has become bizarre. Talk to your friends. Have you found ANYONE who will vote Brown on Tuesday? I didn't think so. Coakley by at LEAT 10 in this race, maybe as much as 25!

Posted by: KEN33 | January 16, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

margaret and broadway joe -- don't waste your time here. The Post's incessant cheerleading for empty-suit Rs has drawn some of the most obnoxious and mentally deficient posters I have ever read here.

There are other blogs where they moderate and keep out the blatant racists and retards.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

hahaha, zook is pretending to have taken an economics course again.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 16, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

@MM, this is one of the silliest fake controversies since "bitter"-gate, flagpin-gate and fistbump-gate. :) In the view of this blog, do you get disqualified as a Massachusetts candidate if you don't know David Ortiz' batting average in 2004? Who cares about this junk? I just hope Coakley isn't victimized on Tuesday by this foolishness and ends up losing to a tea bagger (Brown spoke at one of their high profile events). Wonder where Brown hides his Obama-as-the-Joker poster?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 16, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

you can always tell when a liberal has an utterly weak argument because they end their chant with "case closed"

As if simply saying it acts as a QED on some sort of mathematical proof.

Global warming is dangerous enough to warrant any price to be paid. Case closed.

Voters don't know what's good for them , but elected liberals do. Case closed.

If you simply pass this stimulus of backlogged bribes, the unemployment won't go above 8%. Case closed.

Like that.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers:

How quickly you've forgotten the "Maccaca" moment (or it's only OK to follow around Republicans?).

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Today's poll from ARG (American Research Group)

Massachusetts Senatorial Survey
Scott Brown (R) 48%
Martha Coakley (D) 45%
Joseph Kennedy (I) 2%
Undecided 5%

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Clearly there are GOP gnomes who are spending every minute following Coakley around and then writing up releases about anything. Brown can then walk around smiling, looking handsome and saying blessed little. It goes along with his record in MA governemnt, where he has walked around smiling, looking handsome and doing what he is told.

It is unbelievable that Cillizza's column would *feature* the Schilling thing. This is the kind of nonesense the boys have used to belittle the girls for a long time. She doesn't know enough about sports? Thats a pathetic measure to use, guys.

Again, Cillizza is projecting his sports fixation into some standard for politics. I guess we are lucky Coakley hasn't revealed a blazing lack of knowledge about music and lattes -- cause if the Republicans sent Cillizza an email about that we would get another column, for sure.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 16, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I have received three robocalls so far from Obama since last night. Here are the highlights. (His statements are in quotes followed by what I think he really meant).

1. "I’m fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry..."
My socialistic programs are the only answer.

2. "I’m fighting to create a new clean energy economy..."
I don't care if people are out of work. Let them eat energy!

3 "it’s clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United States Senate..."
He's correct here. That vote will be Scott Brown's.

4. "We know where Martha Coakley stands..."
She stands in Fenway Park.

5. "She represents the best progressive values of Massachusetts..."
But she is the worst possible candidate and a liar.

6. "She‘ll be your voice and my ally..."
I will need her help to continue sticking it to the public.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

@dribble:

It is important to point out that, with one exception, the polls showing Brown tied with Coakley, including the first Rasmussen poll that started the whole Brown-is-gaining narrative, were ALL discredited by the New York Times as violating journalistic standards:

"Some of those polls do not meet the standards of The New York Times and other news organizations because they relied on automated telephone calls. But they have energized the Brown campaign and brought it new support, not least from the antitax Tea Party movement and other conservative groups."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/us/politics/14massachusetts.html?hpw

"The poll that suggested Ms. Coakley’s lead was narrowing, which was conducted by Rasmussen Reports and does not meet the polling standards of The New York Times because it relied on automated telephone calls, suggested Mr. Brown had strikingly strong support among independent voters. But most of them are unlikely to come out for a special election at an odd time of year, Ms. Marsh said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/us/politics/08massachusetts.html?hp

These standards aren't mine; they were established by our national paper of record, the Times. There are three polls that are compliant; they say Coakley is ahead by 15 or eight or is tied. The main Globe poll says she's up 15. Case closed.

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

You are correct; the Suffolk poll which shows the race statistically tied (not Brown ahead) did meet applicable standards.
The Boston Globe I've heard of. Suffolk I haven't. I'll go with the Globe.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 16, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

BJ's tiny brain is overfilled with the phrase journalistic standards.

funny considering most journos failed out of my statistics class.

did nanny peloony send you that to chant this week in an email?

Stand by for next week's chants:

Barry was not responsible for the amazing defeat.

health care reform was not on trial.

americans love liberals.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

@cup, Jake: I'll go with the poll sponsored by the largest newspaper in New England, the Boston Globe. That poll, which DID meet the New York Times' journalistic standards, said Brown is DOWN 15. Good enough for me.

IMO, the Post shouldn't be referencing bogus, non-compliant polls that amount to asking Andy, Barney, Otis, Helen Crump, and Ernest T. Bass whether they like Coakley or Brown and then, after 3 of them "vote" for Brown, running back to the newsroom to type "Brown leads!" But I guess that's just me.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 16, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

The latest poll showing Brown ahead DOES meet commonly accpted journalistic standards. You need new talking points, friend.

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

What's bizarre here is there is no mention of any poll that meets commonly accpted journalistic standards showing Brown ahead.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 16, 2010 2:34 PM

I see that at least you are no longer quoting the old poll that had Coakley up by 15. Why not? Did you finally come down to earth? Gosh, I was waiting for you to tell us that Corzine was still leading Christie in NJ by 5.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

LOL. Coakley's "gaffe" was not knowing who Curt Schilling (a loudmouthed, self-promoting ex-Red Sox pitcher nobody cares about...allegedly) is?

If that's the best charge her opposition in the media can come up, she's doing just fine? Brown (allegedly) is part of a racist proxy movement (i.e., the tea bagger party, see tea party president Dale Robertson's n-word sign). Isn't that association a tad more significant?

How cares who Schilling is? Good grief.
What's bizarre here is there is no mention of any poll that meets commonly accpted journalistic standards showing Brown ahead. The reported Brown "surge" is completely the product of bogus agenda-driven polls (see, e.g., Rasmussen) and right wing media cheerleaders. Brown could win, sure. But ANYONE can win who gets millions of dollars in undeserved free publicity in media outlets such as the one.

Where's the journalism?

Russert gone. Then Froomkin. Oh well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 16, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

So Martha Coakley called Curt Schilling a Yankees fan. I heard he's also Catholic.
Bye Bye Martha!

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Why zouk/snobama/moonbat/drivl can't get a job. ... just read one of his posts. Self-explanatory. Changes his name every time he changes his diaper, notice that?

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 2:17 PM

Are you like that African athlete that claimed to be a woman and was found to have a (male) part? Also, did you read the rules of conduct when you joined this board? It clearly stated that all members must have an IQ of at least five.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

All the posters here have pretty much cornered the market on sanity.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Why zouk/snobama/moonbat/drivl can't get a job. ... just read one of his posts. Self-explanatory. Changes his name every time he changes his diaper, notice that?

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh Jesus a sports gaffe?!?

Only about 25% of Americans care about sports at all. The passionate are a smaller group.

One would think a reporter would know that, but a stenographer probably doesn't.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Why liberals cant get jobs:

My greatest weakness as a present ident has always been an ability to 'reach out and insult someone' — to relate to a target victim, get inside their heads and address their envy. With deep ignorance across a broad range of mindlessness, I can take complex material — hand outs, surrender, pole dancing, bankruptcy — and confuse it in a nasty, partisan and unthinking manner.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

OMG! the blog-spammers are working overtime on a sunny Saturday afternoon.

What a rich black op budget they must share.

ATTN. Roslyn Mazer: Oh, the naivete of the mainstream media. Is this an appropriate use of (contracted?) taxpayer dollars?

Please alert the DNI. Again.

-- Your ear to the ground, "scrivener."

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 16, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I have a husband, Suzy.
How was your pole last night? Where'd you learn to 'dance' like that?

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 1:49 PM

You have a husband? Really! Maybe he's the one that had the Janet Napolitano Blow-UP Doll. I can loan you my pole if you're lonely. I learned how to dance by watching light skin Negros do it. They're really good.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Can any liberals please coherently and sanely try to justify Obama on Christmas Eve raised the bailout limitation on Fannie & Freddie from $400 billion to AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT.

For those of you defending Fannie/Freddie did you know over $300 billion has been used for bailout with an additional Federal Reserve investment in stocks of $1.3 TRILLION?

The biggest bailout, AIG, used to pay European banks is a dwarf compared to the havoc wreaked by the quasi government housing agencies.

Using Christmas Eve and the health care bill as cover was shameful of Obama to do. The media's pitchforks over AIG and yet their supressed silence on things like Fannie/Freddie is a shame to journalism compared to ***coverage of*** actions even beyond the control of the last president.

Posted by: Cryos | January 16, 2010 1:59 PM

Posted by: Cryos | January 16, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Can any liberals please coherently and sanely try to justify Obama on Christmas Eve raised the bailout limitation on Fannie & Freddie from $400 billion to AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT.

For those of you defending Fannie/Freddie did you know over $300 billion has been used for bailout with an additional Federal Reserve investment in stocks of $1.3 TRILLION?

The biggest bailout, AIG, used to pay European banks is a dwarf compared to the havoc wreaked by the quasi government housing agencies.

Using Christmas Eve and the health care bill as cover was shameful of Obama to do. The media's pitchforks over AIG and yet their supressed silence on things like Fannie/Freddie is a shame to journalism compared to actions even beyond the control of the last president.

Posted by: Cryos | January 16, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 1:50 PM

Good posts. That pretty much sums up the situation lol.

Posted by: Cryos | January 16, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Liberals look around and if they see anyone with better stuff then them, they want to drag them down to their level. It is simple envy.

they have already ruined the economy by dragging everyone to the unemplyment line, they shredded the housing market by foreclosing on all the free housing they gave away last decade, they have begun to cripple the energy sector by refusing to accomodate the real world.

now they are on a mission to eliminate any differences in medical care. to do this they need to devestate the care that 95% of us get so that the remaining 5%, who for their own reasons, choose not to obtain insurance (probably because of all the regulation), can be equal to everyone.

note that this desire to prove how equal we are resulted in the most incompetent, inept, inexperienced liberal to make it to the white house ever.

Now the voters are on to the game and are screaming NO. Liberals cover their eyes and ears and plow ahead, oblivious to the damage they are doing. The foreign weakness, the unemployment, the spending, the taxes, the unhappiness, the corruption, the special favors, the lies, the paybacks, the double dealing.

when challenged they reply "but glen beck is a loud mouth". then they blame everything on Bush and try to run against him on election day. Only the very light of intellect are still swallowing this pap.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The baggers have the mentality of serfs.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I have a husband, Suzy.

How was your pole last night? Where'd you learn to 'dance' like that?

'I said a prayer for you.' Yeah, I said one for you too. I sure hope god answers and gives you a brain in your head instead of the one in your cup.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

What??? Who cares?!?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

This pretty much sums up how arrogant democrats have become knowing they have the media locked up. I like this quote being in here.

"'I think we overestimated the state's Democraticness and underestimated the national mood,' one senior Democratic strategist said Friday. 'We thought that the state's deep blue voting pattern would help us withstand national trends.'"

IE we thought that we could jam in these leftist projects with no damages to our supermajority and then in the summer start the media snow job and acting to get democrats back in office come election time.

Posted by: Cryos | January 16, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The baggers have the mentality of serfs.
Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 1:39 PM


Hey drindl, did noacoler loan you his Janet Napolitano Blow-UP Doll last night? Did it keep you warm? I said a prayer for you. Hope it helped.

I'm going snowboarding tomorrow with three of my girfriends. They all have Scott Brown signs they're going to wear on their jackets. Not me. I have a COAKLEY SUCKS sign to wear.

Posted by: SuzyCcup | January 16, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Their rage at their own poor circumstances says Wall Street bad.

But liberals don't like Wall Street, so Wall Street good. At the same time.

Totally incoherent.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

missing one stooge.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The baggers have the mentality of serfs.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The idea that markets function best in the absence of government intervention is one of those nutty lies that right-wingers tell each other.  There is zero evidence to support it and plenty to contradict it.  Our greatest and most extended periods of prosperity are always in times of high taxes on business and strong regulation ((Eisenhower, for example, Republican but sane).  Reagan championed deregulation but we don't recall his "watch"" as a prosperous one, it's the decade that added "downsizing" to our lexicon.
 
The whole corpus of right wing economics is a thin justification for the rubes to support increased concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, which is what Republicans believe in.
 
As for "interference in the marketplace," it's in the national interest to prevent the concentration of wealth.  And such interference is always needed because the wealthy will always use their power to increase their advantage and unlevel the field.  Those bonuses are abhorrent at this time, and their scale is ridiculous.  Anyone who needs hundreds of millions to be motivated to word belongs in a mental institution.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 16, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Dutifully, the baggers do as they are told by their corporate masters and vote for Scott Brown, the Wall Street wh*re. Yeah, this is really showing the 'establishment' your independence. Yeah, that's telling them! LOL. Clowns.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin

Do you expect the TEA people to go over to Coakley - you say you do not "understand" the support - but where do you expect them to go?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

You see the utter lack of coherence in the Teabagger brain? They're against Wall Street, they're for Wall Street. Wall Street is bad, Wall Street is good.

There is no logic, Mark. They just do what they're told by their gods Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity. They're syncophants and simple tools for the wealthy who play them like out of tune violins. Saps and suckas.

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

There were some wild polls out in 2008 showing Obama not doing so well against McCain - I seem to remember something going on there with some Massachusetts polls.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

The "logic" is that once the government made the mistake of bailing out companies that should have rightly failed, it is another mistake to impose the government's view of what is or isn't a fair bonus structure (as just one example, see drivil's post). How much more interference with the market are you willing to allow?

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Did you hear that Coakley's husband's union overwhelmingly endorsed Scott Brown? Or how about Coakley not knowing who Curt Schilling is and suggesting that he was a Yankees fan? Talk about a gaffe a minute. I can't for the you tube greatest hits video to come out.

Posted by: RobT1 | January 16, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Did you hear that Coakley's husband's union overwhelmingly endorsed Scott Brown? Or how about Coakley not knowing who Curt Schilling is and suggesting that he was a Yankees fan? Talk about a gaffe a minute. I can't for the you tube greatest hits video to come out.

Posted by: RobT1 | January 16, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Did you hear that Coakley's husband's union overwhelmingly endorsed Scott Brown? Or how about Coakley not knowing who Curt Schilling is and suggesting that he was a Yankees fan? Talk about a gaffe a minute. I can't for the you tube greatest hits video to come out.

Posted by: RobT1 | January 16, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

something that should be mentioned to clear up some of this liberal fogginess about how business is conducted.

bonuses are given to encourage employees to stick around. It is given to junior level staff to maintain the training and recruiting efforts that are costly for high caliber professionals. It is given to senior executives, not so much as a reward, but as incentive to the lower level to remain in the company and not shop for new diggs.

these prices are set by market forces and profit results.

when the big liberal government interferes with market forces, they always mess things up, requiring even more mangling and more offsets.

It is simply not appropriate to compare wall street salaries to average americans, no more than famous writers, rock stars, movie stars or sports stars.

the bail outs were a grave mistake in the first place, now ever more demanding as the equalibrium is permanantly upset. But further interference is simply a mark of a lesson not learned.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Imagine the audacity of business going up against crooked unions in representing honest americans.

which do real people prefer - Failed auto and airline unions or Wal-Mart - the most successful company in history.

Posted by: drivl | January 16, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Jake, assuming that what drindl posted at 11:34A is correct, I do not understand the TEA support for Brown.
Does it make sense to say that TEA opposed the bank bail out but now oppose the recovery of the taxpayer money? To oppose enriching the few at the expense of the many but then to oppose balancing that very scale?

I am missing the logic.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 16, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 16, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

ATTENTION MR. PRESIDENT, MR. VICE PRESIDENT (staff, pls. fwd.)

Try this line: You need the former MA attorney general in the Senate to help restore civil and human rights in America -- decimated under eight years of Bush-Cheney tyranny. See below:

***

ATTN. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder; Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano: Defense Sec. Robert Gates; Sec. State Hillary Clinton (staffs, pls. fwd.)

NOW IT'S OBAMA'S GESTAPO USA. WHEN WILL YOU ACT?

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)

Note: If the "P" in the URL line for The Poynter Institute disappears or turns into a globe, it likely means that readers are being re-directed to a "spoofed" or faked web site controlled by U.S. government surveillance operatives, who can then "harvest" the IP addresses of those who dare to read these articles -- or add those IP addresses to a government "watch list."

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 16, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Brown is the golden boy of Wall Street, fawning over the very same bankers who caused this financial crisis, promising to protect them from regulation so they can screw us all another time. And they are giving him big bucks in return! The teabaggers who support this corporate wh*re are probably the stupidest people on earth.


"Major U.S. banks which instigated the financial crisis are set to pay out “record” bonuses and compensation — $145 billion by some estimates. State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate running for the special U.S. Senate election next week, announced yesterday that he would oppose the recently announced financial crisis responsibility fee on large banks.

Brown’s defense of the financial industry has not been ignored by Wall Street. Wall Street’s two largest political enforcers are also out fighting to elect him:

– The Wall Street front group FreedomWorks is mobilizing get out the vote efforts for Brown this weekend. FreedomWorks organized the very first tea party protests, and has used its extensive staff and resources to mobilize rallies and advocacy campaigns on behalf of corporate interests. Dick Armey, who as a corporate lobbyist represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouit, is the leader of FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks is also funded and chaired by Steve Forbes and Frank Sands of Sands Capital Management.

– The Wall Street front group Club for Growth is strongly “boosting” Brown and is expected to run ads in support for him. According to recent disclosures, the Club for Growth is funded by a $1.4 million dollar donation from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc, a $1.4 million dollar donation from broker Richard Gilder, and $210,000-$630,000 donations from at least 10 other investors and financial industry professionals. The Club is also supporting a slate of candidates to repeal health reform, while its other endorsed candidates have opposed a financial truth commission.

According to a ThinkProgress analysis of Brown’s latest Federal Elections Commission disclosures (part 1, part 2, part 3), filed on Jan. 8 and 11, business executives and Wall Street executives have lavished Brown’s campaign coffers with 11th hour contributions.

A report on financial industry compensation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo found that large financial corporations — including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup — spend between 25% to 50% of total revenue on paying out executive compensation. While the finance industry often refuses to offer lines of credit to American businesses struggling in this economy, they operate largely as vehicles to make bankers richer.

Brown casts himself as an everyday man, telling reporters “it’s me against the machine.” In fact, Brown is teaming up with Wall Street bankers to kill financial reform and preserve a system of Bush-era crony capitalism."

Posted by: drindl | January 16, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Bush is on with Obama - Bush looks tanned and rested

A little awkward for Obama because Obama has continued the campaign-style attacks on Bush up until this month - even though Bush hasn't been on the ballot since 2004.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Chris

How about Coakley's gaffe last week in which she said Catholics should not be working in emergency rooms.

I haven't seen you mention that one.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 16, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company