Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rothenberg Moves Mass. Senate to "Lean Takeover"

Less than 24 hours before voters in Massachusetts head to the ballot box, political handicapper Stu Rothenberg has moved the Senate special election to "lean takeover" under the belief that state Sen. Scott Brown (R) will win the race to replace Ted Kennedy tomorrow.

Writes Rothenberg:

"While special elections often come down to turnout - and they therefore are more difficult to predict than normal elections - the combination of public and private survey research and anecdotal information now strongly suggests that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in tomorrow's race to fill the remainder of the late-Sen. Edward Kennedy's seat."
"Brown is running extremely well with Independents in the Bay State, and unless Democratic turnout exceeds everyone's expectations, Brown is headed for a comfortable win."

Rothenberg's ratings change comes 24 hours after fellow political handicapper Charlie Cook indicated that he believed Brown would win; "Given the vagaries of voter turnout, particularly in lower participation level special elections, this race could still go either way, but we put a finger on the scale for Brown," wrote Cook.

The ratings changes by Cook and Rothenberg are indicative of a growing conventional wisdom that suggests that the race is now Brown's to lose.

Still, Democrats insist that they have seen a significant increase in their base's enthusiasm over the last few days -- thanks in large part to visits from President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton -- and argue that state Attorney General Martha Coakley can still win.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 18, 2010; 11:25 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Coleman won't run for governor
Next: Coakley campaign launches Obama ad

Comments

dotellen


You sound a little upset about something - what could it be ???


What has you upset today???


Why don't you tell us what has you in such a bad mood ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 19, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse


Frankly, 37thand 0, it is NOT "Obama's health care bill" any more. The House version was pretty close to what our President wanted. The Senate bill is a disaster.

I wonder what the Massachusetts voters think of their own health care legislation, which also has mandated health insurance. Republican Romney was governor at the time. Let us hope that enough voters recognize the pervasive poison of the Party of NO in the Senate bill.

Plus Republican Brown is a Pat Robertson candidate. Republicans represent Theocracy hand in hand with Corporatocracy.

Posted by: dotellen | January 18, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

The health care bill is necessary for a Democratic victory in November. This country voted for change because we needed it. We are getting it and it is not invariably agreeable. Quite frankly, I do not like the bill the way it will be enacted. But it is the best bill that the business community would permit. But you better bet that big business backed this bill, I don't care how they positioned themselves in public.

Posted by: Gator-ron | January 18, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone willing to entertain the possibility that the Coakley-Brown Senate election is just a normal New England political contest?

The candidate offering jobs and tax cuts wins over the candidate trying to break the glass ceiling.

Pandering beats innovation.

Posted by: pach12 | January 18, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what happens tomorrow - the AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN - THEY DO NOT WANT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN.


Even if Coakley won, I seriously doubt that Pelosi could keep her 218 votes together given the scare from the electorate this week.


Every democrat in Congress has to be worried about their political standing - if they are in a district which is less BLUE than Massachusetts, they could be in a worse position than Coakley if they vote for the health care bill.

Obama's health care bill is now RADIOACTIVE !!!!

Who wants the Obama health care bill ??? It will lead to certain defeat in November.

RADIOACTIVE !!!!!

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Since you don't know, allow me to inform you:

Approximately $293 BILLION per year would be saved. Precise data on health care costs for illegal aliens are sketchy because hospitals and community health centers don't ask about patients' immigration status, obviously. I would change that, in addition to in sourcing talent, earned legalization and strict enforcement at the borders along with harsh punishments for employers that won't follow the law.

In Texas, however, the state comptroller estimates illegal aliens cost their hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006. Here in California, a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state's annual cost at around the same $1.4 billion. THAT'S PER STATE. Similar studies in Colorado and Minnesota in 2005 came up with much smaller estimates: $31 million and $17 million, respectively.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm

An earlier study of 28 Florida hospitals (in 2003) estimated $40 million. So, let's say on the low side that's only $4 BILLION per year. That doesn't even account for public education or other social services used by illegal aliens, which is easily over $10 BILLION. In addition, the estimate I've seen for the amount of "remitances" (money sent back home to the countries of origin of illegal aliens) topped $283 BILLION in 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/yearly-mexican-remittance_n_161382.html

So, you add that all up, and it's almost $300 BILLION per year "cost" to the U.S. economy.

To "counter" that, you think that we are taking in so much more in Social Security payments (of course, not taking into account that most payments to illegal aliens are "under the table" in cash). So, let's look at that. The New York Times estimates that illegal aliens pay approximately $7 billion into Social Security per year (assuming that they never get any of that back). Unless my math is wrong, $300 BILLION costs minus $7 BILLION paid = $293 BILLION that would be saved. Is that "big picture" enough for you?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

PS

Tidal waves do far more damage than good. many needless lives are lost and much that is good is destroyed in fury.

Remember that.

Posted by: ps-md | January 18, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse


JakeD,

Since you are so very fond of rhetoric and sound bites, I will indulge you this once. Not my choice of discussion styles though.

1. I have no idea. There are lots of analysis on the undocumented including use of services and contribution. My sense from them is that it won't be as much as people imagine. There will be other "losses" as in the price you will pay for food that will balance out any of the direct gains. Big pictures are important, stop fixating.

2. In the long run, absolutely yes. Primary care is exponentially cheaper than the intensive diagnostic and procedure based care given to an ER and hospitalized patient. It is not just ER, these people have to be hospitalized because they come in too late. Check the primary care visit reimbursement that medicare covers (20-40 bucks) vesus a single day in hospital and you might understand. Hospitals lose millions. Some is subsidized by government directly (our money) and some is subsidized in our insurance premiums (our money)

Let's be clear. We are ALREADY paying for the uninsured. So if we end up paying more directly it won't be any different. Not a free lunch JakeD...the "tidal wave" seems to think a lot of things are just available, but that delusion will lead us off a bigger cliff yet.

Posted by: ps-md | January 18, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

ps-md (last time I will ask, I promise):

1) how much would we save if every illegal alien were deported rather than treated in the ER?

2) would it be cheaper to provide up-front primary care that indigents would simply take advantage of?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

ps-md:

My "tone" is the conservative tidal wave crashing over Massachusetts and D.C. as we speak. Illegal aliens USE much more social services (not just limited to ER rooms) than they ever "pay" in taxes.

broadwayjoe:

Is it also "significant" that Mr. Phox never disputed the allegation that he is a pedophile?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Jake: the other reporting concerns internationally acclaimed trombonist Gregory Charles Royal's unfortunate, yet revealing encounter with Phalin. I will not link to the stories, but will suggest you Google "Palin" and "Gregory Charles Royal" for articles about Palin's, er, personal "policy." Very disturbing.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 18, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Your tone is so very partisan! That does not help informed discussions.
I'll address one issue. The overblown "illegals and health care" one.

Here is my take (and I have some experience) with the caveat that I support immigration reform and am not an open borders advocate. I am at the same time in favor of in sourcing talent, earned legalization and strict enforcement at the borders along with harsh punishments for employers that won't follow the law.

Illegals use the ER, yes. It costs, yes. They also pay taxes under false SS ID's, and they pay SS/Medicare taxes. SS has billions of dollars that are not attributed to anyone. These "illegals" will never get a cent from this.
I believe it is not realistic to "throw the all out". It's a nice sound bite. If you can get past it, there are practical ways to solve the problem. If the politics (especially, but not only at the far right base) could be put aside, there is a comfortable majority in Congress even today
for a practical workable reform bill.
The hypocrisy on health care is stunning.
Republicans vetoed the ability of "illegals" to BUY insurance. If they cost you, let them pay in. Why shed tears later about ER use? As long they are here (to use your rhetoric) let them pay for services. Why ban that? Just so you can point at the cost later?

The far right is the most toxic of forces to our polity and society right now. The sooner they implode the better.
before you ask, I have no love for the far left either. But right now, this is the way it is.

Posted by: ps-md | January 18, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

The Mayberry "poll" still shows Brown ahead by 60%. Andy, Aunt Bee, Ernest T. Bass, and Barney voted for Brown. Helen Crump is still holding out for Coakley.
_____

The media's going to owe Mrs. Coakley a big apology on Tuesday, particularly those who admit to having "a finger on the scale for Brown." Shameful.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 18, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

It is significant that Mrs. Phalin never disputed a single word in Charley James' ground breaking article.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 18, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

And if you think "people who know her" or (even better) "Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used" are FULLY SOURCED fact-based hit pieces, you need a dictionary because we are operating on two different planes.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Of course it's a "waste". Back on topic: what did the Marist Poll (is that one "legitimate" only because you like the result?) say about Brown beating Croakley a month ago?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

NoVAredsox:

I'm retired, with plenty of free time to waste here ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:59 PM
_______

Jake, you are suggesting time spent posting on the blog of "our gracious host [INSERT whatever other Eddie Haskell stuff you always say]" is wasted. For shame. :)

As for Mrs. Todd Phalin, we are aware of only one fully sourced, fact-based profile of her: Charley James' highly regarded 2008 article in laprogressive.com. We commend to your reading.

http://www.laprogressive.com/election-reform-campaigns/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 18, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yes, her almost-son in law, Levi, also said she doesn't shoot and posed for a REAL pornographic magazine, not Cosmopolitan. In the Couric interview (thanks for admitted that Couric, and Gibson too I guess, are not legitimate MSM journalists), she identified "all of them" but refused to give the name of any single newspaper she reads -- you can read all about them in her book "Going Rogue" available at bookstores now -- she slipped ONCE and said "O'Biden" during the debate. I thought it was funny, actually. She has never referred to Obama as "S-mbo." Same UNNAMED SOURCES as your "McCain campaign" quote about her knowledge (she certainly knows about the oil-gas debate) and veracity.

I would say "Case closed" too, but I'm sure your side will keep lying over and over about her, so why bother.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Unfortunately, the 2012 race is not being held today (although one of the opening salvos is set for tomorrow ; )

BTW: what did the Marist Poll (is that one "legitimate" only because you like the result?) say about Brown beating Croakley a month ago?

ROTFLMAO

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone who posted that Palin doesn't have a chance to beat Obama in 2012 better learn a thing or two from Brown.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 2:54 PM"
__________

Fact: The Marist poll said if the 2012 race were today, BHO would beat Mrs. Todd Phalin by 23 points. Her almost-son in law Levi said she doesn't read. In the Couric interview, she was unable to identify a single newspaper she reads. Despite multiple attempts, she could not muster enough intellectual energy to remember the name of her VP debating opponent in 2008. (It was "Biden," BTW.) And, sadly, according to respected journalist Charley James, she refers to our Commander in Chief as "S-mbo." Oddly, she has yet to submit to a single, on-the-record interview by a legitimate MSM journalist. The McCain campaign said she has no knowledge of any policy debate "from the last 10 years" and has great difficulty, well, er, telling the truth. Case closed.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 18, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

ps-md:

How much would we save if every illegal alien were deported rather than treated in the ER?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I am still calling for a compromise bill - there are some things in the health care industry that have to be fixed - however that does not mean we need a massive government program and new taxes.


Obama clearly has a way out of this - that many people can see - however Obama and the democrats are probably still in a fog about where they stand.


We were talking about his last night.


Obama needs to sit down with the Republicans and forge a truly bipartisan bill - one that the Republicans can agree too.


This bill would center on regulation of the health care industry and eliminating the abuses of the health care industry like pre-existing conditions and cancellations of policies.


The compromise would eliminate a big government program, eliminate the individual mandate and eliminate the new taxes - just take all that stuff out that is going to open up a massive hole in the national budget.


It's not that hard.


If Obama is smart, he will seize on this as an opportunity - and it will save him -


Anyone can negotiate this out - it's not that hard - and it really is exactly what Obama promised to do last year during his campaign.


The people have spoken.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

So, now PPP (that meets every NYT criteria you've been spouting about for a week here) is suddenly a FAKE POLL? ROTFLMAO

12BarBlues:

I don't want to see you become indigent either. I also suggested that you could move or get Guaranteed Issue coverage.

ps-md:

Of course we pay for it, and it is expensive, but would it be cheaper to provide up-front primary care that indigents would simply take advantage of? Incremental changes would be much better. Once we get a handle on Medicare fraud, then maybe we could open that up to people who CANNOT be insured otherwise. As for Palin, I prefer to rely on NAMED SOURCES, for instance, in her book "Going Rogue" you would have discovered exactly why Gov. Palin was upset with the Katie Couric interview(s) that Nicole Wallace set up for her. To answer your question, yes, I think that Palin is MORE fit to be President than Obama is ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"The ratings changes by Cook and Rothenberg are indicative of a growing conventional wisdom that suggests that the race is now Brown's to lose."
_______________________

So if Coakley wins, her victory is an "upset" win???? So her win (in the face of multiple bogus polls, fake controversies, and endless free publicity in the MSM) would be the greatest upset in political history, no? Sort of like Super Bowl III?

Go Mrs. Coakley! America will not let you down.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 18, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse


ps-md:

That's a start. By law, as I'm sure you are aware, every American (and non-American for that matter) MUST be treated in the emergency room, regardless of insurance or ability to pay. So, with all due respect, "portability and coverage for pre-exisiting conditions" is part of the over-blown rhetoric too. I was talking to "12BarBlues" over the weekend about alternatives to that, even for someone with a pre-existing condition.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 3:57 PM
---------------------------------------
I know that you were trying to be sincerely helpful about some suggestions for me. I thank you for those ideas.

But, frankly, indigent people being able to use emergency rooms for medical care is not a good or smart substitute for routine healthcare. ps-md is right about needed changes. Most ppl on this forum would agree on the minimum changes needed. The problem is that, for whatever reasons, Congress won't propose the changes (R's) or pass the changes (D's).

In my case, I'm not indigent. I just don't get healthcare unless it is an emergency. Why? Because I don't want to become indigent (& it wouldn't take long for the healthcare system to suck every bit of my net worth away from me) and have my children support me.

Call that old fashioned, but I've got my pride.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

I am very well aware of ER laws. Who do you think pays for that? And how much more exponentially do you think it costs to do it that way? It is not a solution. It is a component of our current breakdown and bankruptcy.
I could go on about this but I do not think it is worth it.

Posted by: ps-md | January 18, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Also JakeD, I dislike Palin. Not because she is Republican. But because she is uninformed, uninterested and insists on the whole "real America" crap as if the rest of us are intruders. Her campaign answers were revealing, her complaints about questions like "which newspapers or magazines do you read" were just pathetic. From game changer:

In some cases, such as the bitter infighting between McCain aides and Palin, the book adds detail to what long ago leaked to the press. Former McCain advisers Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace, who obviously served as sources, found that Palin's "concept of rudimentary facts and concepts was minimal. Palin couldn't explain why North and South Korea were separate nations. She didn't know what the Fed did." In a screaming match after the disastrous Katie Couric interview, "Wallace could barely fathom Palin's hissy fit."

Is she really fit to be President?
If it was to be a Republican, I would much rather have Romney, in the forlorn hope that he would remember how well it works to be moderate once the primaries are over. Bush could have been a good president. he was so beholden to his base for reelection though and so obsessed with finishing Saddam that his two good traits- ability to lead and understanding moderation, were lost beyond repair. The worst of him was brought out.

I also think Obama can yet be a good or great President. He has both the qualities I ascribed to Bush + a much greater intellect coupled with a desire to learn.

Again I hope the MA fiasco send the right message. Too bad it won't happen.

Posted by: ps-md | January 18, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

ps-md:

That's a start. By law, as I'm sure you are aware, every American (and non-American for that matter) MUST be treated in the emergency room, regardless of insurance or ability to pay. So, with all due respect, "portability and coverage for pre-exisiting conditions" is part of the over-blown rhetoric too. I was talking to "12BarBlues" over the weekend about alternatives to that, even for someone with a pre-existing condition.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I am casting blame on both sides, yes.
I am often told I have some clearly liberal views and then some clearly conservative ones. I believe there are good (and terrible) ideas on both sides. The change in MA law did not meed with my approval, whatever that counts for.

Still, I blame Republicans for not even trying on health reform. I would love to see them come up with a bill that allows for portability and coverage for pre existing conditions without any new revenue. Rhetoric, especially the populist variety is wonderful, but it does not change reality.

Also for the record I believe that tort reform should have been part of the bill.

Posted by: ps-md | January 18, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues-
Great post. In my opinion what killed health care was trying to work with the Republicans. Remember Conservatives by definition try to resist change. They really did not want to change anything, if they had wanted to they controlled the White House and Congress for six years. during that time nothing happened except cost healthcare and industry profits have gone through the roof.

Posted by: bradcpa | January 18, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Two myths I wished were true:

1. Santa Claus is coming tonight.

2. If the D's healthcare bill is killed, D's & R's will get together and cooperate on a a new healthcare bill.

And, if I'm wrong, I will publicly and humbly apologize on this forum.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 18, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Everyone who posted that Palin doesn't have a chance to beat Obama in 2012 better learn a thing or two from Brown.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

ps-md:

I certainly hope you are casting blame on the Dems too. This is not just about the "Party of No". Consider it revenge for the MA Dems changing the rules to not allow a Republican Governor to appoint a vacant Senate seat, and then changing the rules again once a Democratic Governor could appoint a vacant Senate seat.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"This bill would center on regulation of the health care industry and eliminating the abuses of the health care industry like pre-existing conditions and cancellations of policies.

The compromise would eliminate a big government program, eliminate the individual mandate and eliminate the new taxes - just take all that stuff out that is going to open up a massive hole in the national budget. "


I have been in health care all my life and I find the utter ignorance on our medical system astonishing. Even the junkies here who speak as if they are all informed appear to have little insight.
IF pre existing conditions are to be covered (and they should be), and there are to be no cancellations, pray how do you do this without any new taxes or mandates?? The matter is simple. I will not buy anything but catastrophic insurance as a healthy person and will wait till i get sick. THEN I will demand a policy that covers me.
It does not work dude. In order to cover all conditions without penalty and to assure portability, first everyone must be covered.
I am no supporter of the way things are now. Nor do I see the current bill as ideal or perfect although it has some good parts in it. BUT I find the whole right wing attitude to be self serving nonsense. It matches with two things:
1. We are entitled, give us everything, do not make us pay for it (classical huh?). Is that not what got us into this whole fix? AND
2. We are the opposition, our job is to oppose, period. Grassley was negotiating a health bill and announcing at the same time that he would vote against it? THIS is what we elect senators for??

So to those who think a Republican house will come up with a bill that has the goodies without costs, I say, dream on. It will be equally flawed, just a different set of goods and bads.

I wish the real message of MA could be that the people want BOTH parties to cooperate on this. But that is not going to be it. It will be more of the same....

Posted by: ps-md | January 18, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

CNN.com Quick Vote:

Who will win Tuesday's U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts?

Brown (R) 54% (103,212 votes)

Croakley (D) 46% (87,539 votes)

Total votes: 190,751

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The day after tomorrow's vote will be the one-year anniversary of "Inauguration" Day:

"I, Barack ... I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute [SIC] ... the office of President of the United States faithfully [SIC] ... and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1-20-09

RESIGN NOW!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

I wouldn't go that far, into "scrivener50" territory, just yet -- there are laws, however, prohibiting government propaganda of U.S. citizens -- so, any of them posting from government-paid computers should be tracked down and exposed.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD writes:


Interesting that there are no libs trash-talking on a FEDERAL holiday? I wonder what the WaPo would find out cross-referencing IP addresses of those like "DrainYou", "broadwayjoe" and "margaretmeyers"?


______________________________

It seems to me that when they are not harassing other posters, and being nasty, they don't have much else to say.

Then at one point last week, they appeared to try defend themselves - by sending compliments to each other.

I still keep on imagining some of them in the same room together.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

NoVAredsox:

I'm retired, with plenty of free time to waste here ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

As Rothenberg said:

"Brown is running extremely well with Independents in the Bay State, and unless Democratic turnout exceeds everyone's expectations, Brown is headed for a comfortable win."

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

If I lived in the Bay State, this Obama voter would be voting for Brown. Coakley is a terrible candidate - its as if she's trying to lose on purpose.

In other news, JakeD needs a new hobby - we get your point.

Posted by: NoVAredsox | January 18, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Bringing Obama into the Commonwealth was a double-edged sword, turning out Independents in a special election. With news that Brown is clearly ahead now, how much more does that actually supress Dem turnout?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Bring it on, Dingy Harry Reid!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

drivl -- your self-description is quite apt.

hey, business is picking up in the read world. if you climbed out of the basement, you might be able to find a job as a gas station attendent.. or something. osmethin to get you away from posting on this blog all day every 3 minutes.

Posted by: drindl | January 18, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

While I believe Coakley will win this race, a Brown victory may well have the direct consequence of a change in the Senate filibuster rule, so it's heads Ds win, tails, Rs lose. That's the way I read it. Thinking that the Ds will let a 59% majority turn into a defeat of their agenda is an inspired R fantasy that's fun to witness.

Posted by: optimyst | January 18, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews Predicts Brown Win

et tu tingly leg?

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

dribble thinks that posting the same thing over 1000 times per day will alter the course of the election.

not everyone is as stupid as upstate New Yorkers.

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

It is hard to believe that Martha Coakley woke up this morning - turned on the news - and saw buildings on fire in Kabul -


The reason I can really imagine it, is because I don't think Coakley watches the news.

She is completely out of touch.


Well, someone please tell Martha that there were terrorist bombings in Kabul last night.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Please do not be confused by the person calling himself 'drivl' who is driving to pass himself off as me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Like mixing up Einstein and Feinstein.

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:39 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 18, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Saying "I don't know" what Rush said is not the same as rejecting what Rush said. Look the words up in the dictionary if you really don't understand the difference.

I guess the "Talking Points" conference call is over?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

As long as this message board is flooded with the filth it has been recently I won't be on it.

Posted by: drindl


unemployment won't go above 8%

this will be a transparent administration.

More liberal lies.

why bother kook?

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

the truth drives out the lies.

woohoo.

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

the racism on the right is insidious and pervasive...

Last week following the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh controversially said that President Obama was politicizing the disaster by trying to boost his credibility with the “light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country.” Fox News host Glenn Beck also said that Obama was “dividing the nation” by reacting “so rapidly to Haiti.” Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked President Bush about these criticisms (without specifically mentioning either Limbaugh or Beck). Bush rejected their characterizations:

GREGORY: In some circles, the President’s been criticized for politicizing this disaster. Do you think that’s fair?

BUSH: I don’t know what they’re talking about. I’ve been briefed by the President about the response. And as I said in my opening comment, I appreciate the President’s quick response to this disaster.

Posted by: drindl | January 18, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

except when i feel like it

State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the special U.S. Senate election Tuesday, voted against a bill to provide financial assistance to 9/11 rescue workers who had volunteered to rush to the site of the twin towers after the terrorist attack in 2001. The measure, which was opposed by only two other legislators in addition to Brown, provided paid “leaves of absence for certain Red Cross employees participating in Red Cross emergencies.” Despite Brown’s efforts to kill the legislation, it passed along overwhelmingly bipartisan lines and is now helping to compensate Massachusetts Red Cross employees currently deploying to Haiti to provide emergency assistance after the devastating earthquake. Asked yesterday by ThinkProgress why he opposed the 2001 measure for rescue workers, Brown stated that he had his “own priorities first” at the time. As ThinkProgress reported, during the same period that Brown opposed the financial aid to 9/11 rescue workers, he sponsored a bill to provide a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in his district, and voted for across the board corporate tax subsidies.

Posted by: drindl | January 18, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse


JakeD writes:

Interesting that there are no libs trash-talking on a FEDERAL holiday? I wonder what the WaPo would find out cross-referencing IP addresses of those like "DrainYou", "broadwayjoe" and "margaretmeyers"?


___________________________________

Jake

You are correct - too many times it appears that this crew is working together -


Last year, it almost seemed like they were working shifts together - one set of them were posting for hours, and then another set would come on with the same talking points.


The nasty behavior from the liberals is completely inappropriate - and from this group it appears to be sustained and coordinated.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Please do not be confused by the person calling himself 'drivl' who is driving to pass himself off as me. As long as this message board is flooded with the filth it has been recently I won't be on it.

Posted by: drindl | January 18, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

bstanman83:

THANK YOU!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

""Taliban militants wearing explosives vests launched a brazen assault on the heart of Kabul on Monday, as suicide bombings and gunbattles near the presidential palace and other government buildings paralyzed the capital for hours.""

Wait, I heard they were all gone from there. what gives? Is is possible that appeasement, surrrender, dalliance, apology and fecklessness is emboldening the enemy?

barry, time for that yearly half hour meeting with your general.

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Make us proud Bay State. Prove you're not as backward as upstate NY.

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

37thandOStreet:

It is quite a coincidence (never happened before) that NONE of them are posting right now. Is it a "co-ordinated" calm before the storm? There will likely be violence before Obama goes down.

drivl:

To be fair, Bush willingly taking "political immolation in his second term as the price of getting the war on terror right" also goes against that strict reading of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Had Bush (or, more likely, Cheney) adjourned Congress and suspended the 2008 election, to declare himself Ruler for Life, that is what the Declaration of Independence applies to. Not the orderly transfer of power every 4 to 8 years. I agree with the remainder of Chantrill's article : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

As a MA voter who previously voted for Kennedy and most recently for Obama, I'm 100% behind Brown this time around.

MA voters have been taken for granted for 40 years. We have crippling Democratic-machine monopoly politics, and now it has spread to the nation at large via the Congressional supermajority, White House, etc.

Brown is the change candidate in this election. He's the one to restore political balance, dissent and common sense to Washington. Go Scott!

Posted by: bstanman83 | January 18, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

What "problems with the uninsured and the rising costs of health insurance"? By law, every American (and non-American for that matter) MUST be treated in the emergency room, regardless of insurance. I was talking to "12BarBlues" over the weekend about alternatives to that, even for someone with a pre-existing condition.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:14 PM

Ahh so we have socialized medicine the costs are just hidden and pasted along.

@mbcnewspaper | January 18, 2010 12:12 PM

I agree with you 100%. That is were I was take the conversation.

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

mbcnewspaper:

If the GOP can take back the House (probably not the Senate this time around), then they will introduce healthcare reform which includes limits on malpractice suits and applies to UNIONS as well Then, the dems / Obama can decide if they want to go up against THEIR special interest groups.

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

But word is starting to dribble out. Reports Hugh Hewitt on the latest campaign page-turner, Game Change by Mark Halperin and John Heilmann:


The portrait of the president is really an effort in poison-pen pointillism, where hundreds and hundreds of razor sharp paragraphs combine to create a deeply disquieting picture of the new president. President Obama is presented as insecure and needy of reassurance (p. 25), self-important, cynical and megalomaniacal (pp 30-31), petulant and spoiled (p. 111), touchy and vain (p. 112), hypocritical (p. 119), overweening (p. 184) and deceptive (p. 120.)


Another disquieting note is the overarching theme of Obama's first year of governance, the determination to govern against the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, that government gains its just powers from the consent of the governed. The American people do not consent to the $787 billion stimulus. They do not consent to the cap-and-trade bill. They do not consent to the federalization of health care.

The comparison to the character and governance of President George W. Bush is telling. We knew, before we elected him to be president, a lot about his character: his fight against business failure and alcoholism. His character was confirmed in the challenges of his presidency when President Bush submitted to a political immolation in his second term as the price of getting the war on terror right.


The awful chasm opening before us today after the first year of Obama is the realization that we have no knowledge of President Obama's character. If President Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, President Obama has been spoon-fed royal jelly by the worker bees in the liberal hive all his adult life. Even now, we know of no occasion in a charmed life when Barack Obama has risen above the shibboleths and routine thuggeries of political faction.


Yet President Obama is called to lead the nation out of a nasty recession provoked by his party's compulsive manipulation of the credit system, a history that reaches from the $400 billion losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all the way back to Andrew Jackson's war with the Second United States Bank.


In the year ahead, as unemployment stays high and as isolated desertions in the Democratic ranks metastasize into headlong routs of whole battalions, President Obama will face challenges that test every fiber of his being. Sensing his insecurity and need for reassurance, cunning men and women will suggest ways of using his political power to get back in the game. Will he sacrifice his party and his presidency and do the right thing, or will he sacrifice the American people on the altar of political expediency?


I fear the answer to that question.


Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

JakeD


For a very long time, I have been wondering if the liberals on here are working as a coordinated group - directed by some entity -


What they have been doing is suspicious.

The most troubling aspect is that they have appeared to engage in behavior which is aimed to discourage people from posting - shutting down Freedom of Speech for their own ends.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

What "problems with the uninsured and the rising costs of health insurance"? By law, every American (and non-American for that matter) MUST be treated in the emergency room, regardless of insurance. I was talking to "12BarBlues" over the weekend about alternatives to that, even for someone with a pre-existing condition.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

ModerateVoter:

If Brown wins, the current healthcare initiative will only pass if the House agrees en toto to the Senate bill. None of the other "Plan B's" being discussed in the press are feasible, because all of them, to varying degrees, erode the legitimacy of the bill in ways most everyone intrinsically understands.

If the House won't agree en toto with the Senate bill, healthcare reform is dead. Any talk of going back to the drawing board and crafting a truly bipartisan bill is just that, talk. Republicans, and I am one, are not acting in good faith on healthcare reform any more than the Dems are. Dem partisans are right that attempting to find common ground and compromise with Republicans is a fool's errand. Republicans have convinced themselves that the electoral successes of the last 6 months are a result of them uniformly opposing Obama on most everything. To them, it's not in their interest to change course now and work in a bipartisan way. And again, to be honest, Dems who are taking it on the chin at the moment are hardly going to be anxious to work with the other side anyway. And round and round we go. And I say all this as someone who mostly agrees with Republicans that the current healthcare bill is more bad than good and should be defeated. But I can believe that, and also believe that the healthcare debate personifies the inability of our government to constructively address society's most pressing problems. And it doesn't seem to matter who's in charge. That's the really scary part.

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

I wonder if Patty is back on the pills again. He is after all a Kennedy.

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

As a reminder (from 9/9/09):

"... under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Just so I understand Jaked...

You think the problems with the uninsured and the rising costs of health insurance are not an issue.

If so why?

Posted by: ModerateVoter | January 18, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Yes.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

R.I.P. Obamacare (laid to rest right next to Hillarycare ; )

Did you see yesterday that Patrick Kennedy kept referring to Martha Croakley as "Marcia"?

Ok so no reform at all? In any form? Is this a good thing?

Posted by: ModerateVoter | January 18, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

R.I.P. Obamacare (laid to rest right next to Hillarycare ; )

Did you see yesterday that Patrick Kennedy kept referring to Martha Croakley as "Marcia"?

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/after_obama_ral.php

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

So if Brown wins then Healthcare reform is dead, at least that is my understanding. Where do the people that post here see reform going?

Posted by: ModerateVoter | January 18, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

37thand0street:

Interesting that there are no libs trash-talking on a FEDERAL holiday? I wonder what the WaPo would find out cross-referencing IP addresses of those like "DrainYou", "broadwayjoe" and "margaretmeyers"? No wonder government worker productivity is in the toilet (and they want to add a massive new government layer to healthcare as well?!).

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza:

The link you provided to the Cook Report comes up with "This content is restricted to subscribers ..."; care to provide a few more specifics for us non-subscribers?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Still not counting my chickens before they hatch, but here's my prediction:

Brown 52.7%
Coakley 44.2%
Kennedy 3.1%

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

We'll see tomorrow!

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama clearly has a way out of this - that many people can see - however Obama and the democrats are probably still in a fog about where they stand.


We were talking about his last night.


Obama needs to sit down with the Republicans and forge a truly bipartisan bill - one that the Republicans can agree too.


This bill would center on regulation of the health care industry and eliminating the abuses of the health care industry like pre-existing conditions and cancellations of policies.

The compromise would eliminate a big government program, eliminate the individual mandate and eliminate the new taxes - just take all that stuff out that is going to open up a massive hole in the national budget.

It's not that hard.

If Obama is smart, he will seize on this as an opportunity - and it will save him -


Anyone can negotiate this out - it's not that hard - and it really is exactly what Obama promised to do last year during his campaign.

The people have spoken.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 18, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Where are all the trash-talking libs NOW, huh?

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Short of Obama resigning, what a wonderful way to celebrate the one-year anniversary of "Inaguration" Day.

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Barry is going to need Baghdad Bob to write his state of the union speech.

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

It seems Nanny pelooni has lost two of the three votes she needs to pass the health care monster in the HOuse.

the message is out on the street. Keep your heads down libs if you want to keep your job. don't follow dungy harry into retirement. don't follow barry to socialism.
how fitting that the first verifiable shot is from boston, they having effectively thrown the liberals into the harbor.

no need to dress like Indians this time, sorry, Native americans.

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Not putting it past the Dems / ACORN to resort to voter fraud, but this is good news indeed. R.I.P. Obamacare : )

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!!

Posted by: JakeD | January 18, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Hey Obama:

Can you hear me now?

Posted by: drivl | January 18, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company