Tea Baggers WIN in Mass

If this tea bagger movement isn’t a tool of the Republican Party (and they have a long way to go to prove they aren’t), can electing Senator Scott Brown be the wake up call needed to remind democrats and President Obama about the change that was promised?  The elections in 2006 and 2008 meant something, and they’ve let the people down.

Between now and the mid-term elections they can learn to govern or they too can go home.  Obama and the democrats tried compromise, they gave away everything and got nothing.  Now is the time to use the majorities the voters gave them and improve America for all Americans.  If they don’t, in an election coming to you soon we’ll be seeing Palin elected POTUS.

61 Comments

Filed under Elections

61 responses to “Tea Baggers WIN in Mass

  1. “Brown: Mass. Election Not Obama Referendum

    GOP Senator-Elect Says Key to Upset Was Tapping into Growing Aggravation among Voters over Partisan Gridlock

    Sen.-elect Scott Brown, the Republican who upset Democrats in the special Senate election in Massachusetts, says he doesn’t think it was a referendum on President Barack Obama.

    Brown also said in a nationally broadcast interview Wednesday that he also doesn’t think his victory over Attorney General Martha Coakley “was anything that she did.” Brown said, instead, he was able to tap into growing aggravation among voters, including independents, over partisan gridlock in Washington.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/20/politics/main6118913.shtml

    If there was gridlock before, and that was the dissatisfaction the voters felt, how does this election change that gridlock?

    • Of course Brown and the republicans are going to paint this as a victory for themselves. The truth is that this was a defeat of the Democrats by themselves.

      If Obama had gone into office intent on delivering the change that he promised instead of playing that good old Washington parlor game of getting yourself re-elected, the party would have overwhelming support and the tea baggers would have faded into the woodwork. Instead, Obama has made himself look weak to the conservatives (because they can’t stand bipartisanship and view compromise as a weakness) by reaching around, er, I mean, reaching out to conservatives. And he has enraged progressives (who, as his crummy little Toady, Rahm Emanuel, pointed out are not important anyway) with just about every move he has made.

      So, assuming that those in the middle lean to the left or the right, he has pissed everyone off in different measures at least once. And healthcare “reform” has made his administration and the party look dismally bad. So, what do the democrats expect?

      Having said that, I have to feel as though buyer’s remorse will set in quickly in Massachussetts. They know better than to elect a do-nothing republican. Brown better lean dem, or he will be a one-termer anyway.

  2. PrairiePond

    Obama finds himself in no man’s land. He’s screwed his base with his pandering, coporatist bipartisanship, and that bipartisan bullshit will NEVER win him one repuke vote. It only loses him support of his own people. There is no upside for him on bipartisanship.

    His group of supporters grows ever smaller on his side. It cant get any less than zero on the repuke side. And if he keeps doing what he’s doing, he’s going to get what he’s got. That was a hell of a mandate he destroyed without ever using.

    One term. And he’s screwed it up so badly it will be another generation before the democrats get a chance to govern again. That means in four years, the SCOTUS will be lost for another generation, maybe longer. Kiss your right to chose goodbye.

    I didnt think it was possible for anyone to govern as badly as the repukes. He’s proven me wrong. I dont think even a change in direction, which he’s likely too proud to do, will save the elections this year.

    Nice job all the way around.

    • Hi Pondie. Long time no-see.

    • That is one of the more scary parts of Obama being a one-termer and a Republican elected to president — SCOTUS. One appointment in the conservative column at the Supreme Court and they can make abortion illegal again. They won’t stop a single abortion and, in fact, will cause the deaths and injuries to women who will go back to the unsafe dirty back alley providers. But why would they care? The women of means, who are the only ones that matter, will continue to have their abortions in safe clean doctor’s offices and hospitals while calling them a different name.

      So the conservatives can hold their heads high because they don’t have to see the abortions and the mutilation of women. Kinda like they currently save the blastocysts at fertility clinics from research. They don’t care. They don’t have to see them destroyed out back.

      • tosmarttobegop

        My grandmother God rest her soul, was amazing and informative.

        Though she had no idea there was actually a name for women who loved other women.
        She told me that there really is nothing new, couples were having sex outside of being married.
        Unwedded mothers were having abortions and women and girls did want to have sex and were not being forced into.

        The difference is that back then no one talked about it or admitted it happened.

      • wicked

        I had to drive by Spirit One today. Can’t do that without reading the drivel they post on that marquis outside. Today is was something about the 50,000,000 deaths attributed to Roe v. Wade. Guess whose hands have the blood of that on them? According to Spirit One, it’s Christians.

        If they’d focus on helping people instead of judging and condemning them, maybe there’d be change. That ain’t gonna happen.

    • Hang on, PrairiePond. A little perspective, please. As badly as Obama has bungled some of the things he has taken on at home, he will never approach the appallingly bad diplomacy of the Bush Adminstration. Appallingly bad isn’t even near harsh enough, alas, there are no words.

      Let’s do remember that things could be worse, but they SHOULD be better! I agree with you there!

  3. Why don’t we have real democracy?
    A bunch of nitwits from some frozen state I’ve never seen will be screwing me from now on.
    All the while, the actual majority want the reform they block.

  4. WSClark

    As I noted last night, it’s time to drop the gloves and play hardball, to mix two sports metaphors.

    Obama and the Dems need to bust some chops. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

  5. PrairiePond

    Sometimes I wonder if democratic voters are really mad at themselves, but are projecting it on Obama.

    In the primaries, he sold them a bill of goods. He promised a lot but delivered not only little, but the opposite of what he promised.

    Now, I think many worker bee democrats are feeling duped. And they need to be mad at someone. The ones who cant quite admit they swallowed the team obama lies hook, line and sinker, are blaming reid, pelosi, lieberman, rahm, geitner, et al.

    But the real person to blame is obama. Isnt he the HMFWIC? He could get rid of or neutralize all those above named folks. But instead? He got rid of Howard Dean and put in tim kaine.

    So… who’s really to blame here and what will the loyal opposition do about it?

    (crickets chirping)

  6. PrairiePond

    “Obama and the Dems need to bust some chops. No more Mr. Nice Guy.”

    I agree. But good luck with that. It’s never been obama’s style, he signaled that in the primaries. He needs the “approval” of the repukes so badly that he’s willing to sell out his own party faithful.

    How’s all that bipartisanship with rick warren, donnie mcclurkin, kirbyjon caldwell, and inviting the repukes to the white house for cookies and cocktails working for us?

  7. WSClark

    God forgive me for what I am about to write…………..

    Barack Obama could and should learn a lesson from George W Bush – an important lesson. Hear me out before the bomb threats start.

    When Bush was (selected) in 2000, despite losing the popular vote, he proceeded to act as if he had a mandate to push his agenda. He did the same in 2004, even claiming that he “had political capital and was going to use it” and he did until the 2006 mid-terms.

    Obama won the presidency with a much more convincing mandate than Bush ever could have dreamed of, but he has not, and may not get the chance, to use it. Basically, he has until November to use what little is left of his mandate.

    Bush ignored the opposition (us) and proceeded to do what he wanted to do. Obama has tried a different approach and it has cost him, and us.

    Barack Obama will never get any support from the right, so ditch any effort at bipartisanship and proceed at WFO throttle with the evil liberal agenda.

    • I understand exactly what you’re saying and it has merit!

    • Even now when the atrocities of bush the lesser are still being brought out of the dark corners — the illegal spying on Americans that recently made the news — there isn’t any accountability to bush. The same people who supported him then, still do now. No matter what he wanted he did it, and he didn’t lose or gain in the process. America lost, but Obama is now getting that blame.

  8. David B

    I am totally avoiding any political news or noise for at least a few days.

  9. Don’t you just know that when we make comments about pushing full-throttle ahead with the LIBERAL agenda (which is what I wish would happen too), and we’re sure the promise of such initiatives as meaningful comprehensive health-care reform got President Obama elected, the Republicans are reacting to our proclamations the exact way we react to them saying they need a ‘pure’ Republican.

    🙂

    Maybe Obama wasn’t elected to do what we think, but just maybe was elected because voters were so sick of bush the lesser they went for the opposing party.

    PERIOD.

    There were basically two choices and they weren’t about to elect someone who campaigned to continue as bush. Maybe there was no mandate for health-care reform. Maybe the voters are just so ill-informed, so wishy-washy they truly have no idea what is going on, they only know they are angry, dissatisfied, things aren’t going well…

    And you know what that means? It means people who pay enough attention to know what is actually happening and who is responsible are in the tiny minority.

    We know too few Americans even vote. Now do we also need to face some facts about how well informed those few who do vote really are?

    • “Maybe Obama wasn’t elected to do what we think, but just maybe was elected because voters were so sick of bush the lesser they went for the opposing party.”

      Or maybe Obama was elected because the corporate interests saw that the republican party had lost all credibility, so they found a democrat that would kowtow to their agenda. Maybe almost every decision that Obama has made since the election has supported the suspicion that he is really in the pocket of the corporate masters that run things “behind the scenes.” But maybe we all chose not to believe that and chose to believe that it is some sort of conspiracy theory. No matter how much evidence to the contrary comes out, no matter how the administration’s actions don’t match their words, but instead support the theory, we continue to choose to believe that we have two separate parties and one of them is on our side.

      I don’t know; it’s a theory.

      • I understand and agree with your theory that corporate masters are in control. No one can ignore that.

        The fact still exists that the people do the voting. A few of us anyway — last I heard less than a third of eligible Americans vote. Of that small number who actually vote, how many do know who is in control?

        Or, are you saying, as some speculate, that our votes don’t count. That it isn’t WE THE PEOPLE casting the votes?

      • And how does it change? What direction do we take? We are given a couple of candidates and we do the best we can by going to the polls and exercising our civil duty and right by voting.

      • “The fact still exists that the people do the voting. A few of us anyway — last I heard less than a third of eligible Americans vote. Of that small number who actually vote, how many do know who is in control?”

        How can we be sure that our votes are even being accurately counted? I think it isn’t possible to fix the vote count when the majorities are really high because people would not accept the outcome. But if we think the race is close, we accept whatever outcome we are given. Look at 2000. That was obviously fixed–it was a selection. What the Supreme Court did was against the law, but we all accepted it, didn’t we?

        Something to think about…

  10. If so few know what is going on and only vote for the opposition if they perceive things aren’t going well, vote for whoever is currently in power if they perceive things are running smoothly — then let’s get on with initiatives like health-care reform in meaningful ways, not this stupidity of watered-down bills that make things worse. Let’s fix America’s challenges — push it through no matter what it takes — and get us on a path where these ill-informed voters feel things are going pretty good.

  11. This is what American politics is and I’m ashamed.

    Maybe this is the way it’s always been. Too few people even pay any attention.

  12. WSClark

    McConnell (R-KY) stated that the Mass vote “proved that Americans don’t want the government taking over their health care.”

    WTF? I wish just one GOP’er could explain how the current bill, if you can call it that, “takes over health care.”

    Just one.

    No single payer. No government option. Nothing but insurance regulations, most of which don’t kick in until 2014.

    Damn, can anyone in the GOP tell the truth?

    • tosmarttobegop

      Well…. IT’s so long…. and word-ee….
      with them big ten dollar words…. Its has to be the Govrn’met tak’n oveR health car!

  13. It works for them — being against! It works because Americans are weary. Too many out of work, too many unable to afford the necessities…

    The Republicans don’t need any ideas or solutions, they only need to be loud in blaming all the problems on Obama and the democrats.

  14. Republicans want power. They don’t want to actually do something. Easier that way, and they can spend all their time fooling the people who are easily fooled.

  15. lilacluvr

    I see the election of Scott Brown as something else. It was the Independents that got Brown into that Senate seat – not the Republicans.

    And, if you will take a real close look at Brown’s campaign, he may have had tea with the tea baggers but he tried to distance himself from that group when pushed in an interview. Brown ran as a centrist – with a little of the GOP rhetoric thrown in for good measure.

    Brown portrayed himself as an everyday man – driving an American-made everyday truck.

    Well, that is all well and good. But let’s see what Senator Scott Brown will be doing and saying. If he falls into the lockstepping of the Party of No and throws his hissy fits like the other 2 yr-olds in the play yard, then that will be seen as nothing else but a pretty-boy candidate that the GOP puppet master makes dance.

    I just read a posting from a dyed-in-the-wool Republican actually defend Scott Brown’s nude picture because his private anatomy was not shown. So, I guess in her/his mind, that makes it okay to pose nude.

    I don’t really care if the man poses nude, but when his Party of No claims to be the only party to stand for morals and those good ole Christian values – then I have to wonder – they sure do make those loopholes big enough for the people they want to give a pass to, don’t they?

    Scott Brown is being hailed as such a sainted Republican man. And haven’t we heard this line before and can we count as to how many of those sainted Republican men have been disgraced by the truth coming out?

    Me thinks the Republicans are too drunk with this victory to see the big picture.

    I prefer to wait for a few months and see what the fallout is before I judge Sen. Scott Brown.

    And, if he is what he says he is, then good for him. But I doubt it very much if he will stay in the good graces of the GOP if he refuses to play ball with their stategy of 2 yr-olds in the play yard.

  16. The Votemaster (this is only a snippet of what he has to say):

    “Clearly, Obama’s plans for 2010 are strongly affected by this election. Getting actual legislation through the Senate will be very difficult because Republicans don’t want to pass legislation; they want him to fail. From their point of view, that is an excellent strategy. The Democrats will get credit for any legislation, so the Republicans’ best hope is that there isn’t any.”

  17. Zippy

    Some thoughts from different sources, courtesy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer :

    A toxic political climate: The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald F. Seib argues that tying Brown’s victory to the debate over health care reform is oversimplifying. “Political analyses often walk straight past the most obvious answer on their way to more exotic ones, and that’s a danger here. Any analysis has to start with the simple fact that the economy is in bad shape—and is widely seen as being in even worse shape than it probably is. Significantly, the Massachusetts campaign may come to represent the event that showed their ability to lay the blame on the previous Republican administration is nearing its end.”

    A nuanced picture: Politico’s Glenn Thrush writes that polling data indicates health care was the biggest issue for voters, but that their opposition to reform isn’t a slam dunk. And, the result doesn’t seem to be a referendum on Obama. “Coakley was done in by the intensity of the anti-health care activists — not overwhelmed by their sheer numbers — and she was doomed not by Obama’s unpopularity but by her own incompetence and subpar communication skills.”

    When the going gets tough: Michael Russnow writes for the Huffington Post that the message Obama should get is that it’s time to play hardball and get tougher. “Hopefully he’s begun to learn that’s not how things are done. The GOP opposition has been mostly against him, no matter how affable he was to them, and they vote in lock step on most matters, fueled by Tea Party fanatics, who have proven Shakespeare’s depiction of the masses was so right. Julius Caesar’s the best example, wherein people can be swayed depending on oratory or events. Because of Obama’s out and out failures or seemingly never ending negotiations to effect sought-after policies, mostly born out his fear of playing hardball, the public now views Obama as inept or considers his proposals outrageous and out of touch.”

    A message for Republicans: Tim Mak argues for the National Post in Canada that Brown’s victory should be a warning for conservatives who are demanding ideological purity in the GOP. “One oft-repeated criticism of the Tea Partiers is that they demand unblemished GOP ‘purity’. But on Tuesday the Tea Party witnessed the spoils of allowing ideological flexibility; they learned the benefits of backing moderate candidates when they run in moderate jurisdictions. After all, this is Massachusetts, and Senator-elect Scott Brown is no Tea Partier.” (Just a global-warming denier–Z.)

    Dirty tricks vs. tough politics: The Economist posts its opinion that any effort to delay Brown taking office would be wrong, but if Democrats hustle health care reform to passage ahead of time that’s fair play. “Legal or not, one of these is stupid and undemocratic, the other is not. … That bill was passed by a healthy supermajority of senators, after most of those senators, most House Democrats and the president spent 2008 and 2009 telling everyone in America who would listen that they planned to overhaul health care. Regardless of whether that process alienated many voters, some of whom took it out on Martha Coakley, pushing it through the House would be legitimate.”

    http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/why_scott_brown_won_in_massach.html

    The upshot: people are pissed and Coakley was less that a fantastic candidate. It doesn’t hurt to remember that in 1994 Teddy himself nearly lost to Mitt Romney (and, yes, I’m aware of how ominous that is).

    Clinton won re-election in ’96 by out-Doling Dole on several issues. Even if they were that insane, Obama and Axelrod don’t have that option, regardless of the opposition candidate.

    And the Tea Party movement, “inspired” by the usual hacks, was possible due to a lack of either firm principle or stubbornness in Washington.

    It seems once the banks were bailed out and a Great Depression was averted, it was back to business was business-as-usual.

    I think our weary people (and that’s the problem, those who should protest the most are overloaded) need to take page from the teabaggers (wipe it off first!). Get louder. Get visible. This isn’t a football game, it’s democracy. We can’t wait on the guy in the White House to “play hardball.”

    The public needs to know the crisis isn’t over, and that full-strength Republican policies aren’t an option.

    As crazy obvious as that seems, people have short memories, and they’ve been given little else to go on.

    And the main selling point of Obama’s message–we’re in this together–is belied everyday by the realities of the unchecked power and privilege versus stagnant opportunities and wages, and a president who only put his foot down once–before he was elected–by threatening a veto, once.

    Otherwise, we get whatever official Corpington will deign to throw us.

    No wonder tea-party selfishness caught on.

    • Than you, Zippy. Much good information there, and warnings that should be heeded.

      Even the one to the tea baggers:

      “One oft-repeated criticism of the Tea Partiers is that they demand unblemished GOP ‘purity’. But on Tuesday the Tea Party witnessed the spoils of allowing ideological flexibility; they learned the benefits of backing moderate candidates when they run in moderate jurisdictions.”

      I feel more confident the tea baggers learned their lesson, then that the democrats did. Democrats first have to learn to be ruthless.

    • “And the main selling point of Obama’s message–we’re in this together–is belied everyday by the realities of the unchecked power and privilege versus stagnant opportunities and wages, and a president who only put his foot down once–before he was elected–by threatening a veto, once.

      Otherwise, we get whatever official Corpington will deign to throw us. ”

      Hear, hear Zippy! Well said! It should be engraved in some public place.

      • What would have been different if McCain had won?

        He was the only viable choice to Obama.

        What does the complaining about Obama accomplish?

      • “What does the complaining about Obama accomplish?”

        Maybe nothing, but what I hope it accomplishes is that Obama starts doing what he promised and stops being a pawn of the behind the scenes players.

        I voted for the man for his ideas, not him. If he is going to change once he gets in office, I am going to holler about it. And it’s not just because I am being self-indulgent. Having spent hours on the phone and walking the neighborhoods of my county convincing others of the merits of Obama’s ideas, I feel a keen responsibility to point out when he does the exact opposite. I supported him to anyone who would listen, now I will condemn his failure to fulfill his promises to anyone who will listen.

        We The People have one tool–and that is public conversation in the court of public opinion–to use to affect change. If we are loud enough with numbers large enough, that is the only time we get to come to the table with the special interests. So, when I don’t like something, I am going to add my voice to the rest of the complainers and hope we are enough to be heard.

  18. When I say we will wait because we don’t have choices, that makes me part of the problem, doesn’t it?

    We’re smart people here. We know complaining does nothing positive. What can we do? How can we change this system of replacing one elected official for someone with a different letter behind the name, and repeating it the next election?

    I’ve heard it said that all politics is local. We’re in Kansas. We’ll need to go real local to have any effect. Brownback will be our state’s next governor, we’ll have Senators Roberts and either Moran or Tiahrt (interchangeable for the most part). Our Rep in Congress will probably be one of the six or so Republicans vying to face off against Goyle (although this is probably the highest-up race there is even an inkling of chance for change from status quo). So we’re down to Kansas legislative positions — most contests in my district only have one candidate, very seldom is it a contested race.

    Seems so discouraging.

  19. tosmarttobegop

    You are not going to want to hear this, it is the herding cats curse has came back to bit the progressives in the ass.
    It makes the Democratic to appear unfocused and indecisive in a time when we need focus and decision.

    Here is something we can all agree with, if instead of trying to fix every little ill with health care.
    The focus and drive had been singularly on either single payer or Public option!
    Nothing else to be done with health care reform, it could have been done.
    It would have by the time of the elections shown real effect and the Republicans would not have a chance of winning an election for the next decade.

    After the big win on health care Obama could have gotten the repeal of DADT, DOMA and many of the other goals and promises.

    His trying to be bipartisan was a waste of time and not needed.
    A super majority gave free pass to accomplish anything that was wanted or needed.
    But it was “we met the enemy and he is us!”.

    Wasting time and effort in attempting and explaining minor and fluffy amendments that actually could have waited till after the major win.
    Giving more targets for the Cons to attack and even if they win which they did.
    It was meaningless either them winning in the distortion of the goal or if in fact that goal was accomplished.

    There is something that often is overlooked in the topic of the tea parties.
    A part of it is truly some special interests using the unknowing as tools.
    But there is a true element to the anger of the tea partiers.
    A sincere disillusionment with both parties and the system.

    If the parties end up being interchangeable and no real difference.
    Replacing one with the other is only a short term solution.
    Voting in more Cons is not the answer and neither is voting in more liberals.

    Yesterday was a true sign of people having grown angry at how the Democratic being no different then the Republicans.

    • I would be encouraged if I thought most of the tea baggers are truly disappointed with the political process and both parties. That isn’t what they’ve shown me.

      As Lilac has pointed out — if the tea baggers were truly aware of both parties being the problem, they wouldn’t have their stages and gatherings filled with current Republican office holders. Those wouldn’t be the people giving the speeches.

      The tea baggers are tools of the Republican Party and all they’ll get is the change back to what was. Without even realizing that what was isn’t good.

      • lilacluvr

        I read an article yesterday on Huffington Post about the Tea Party movement is going through a heated debate within their group.

        It seems there is a large group wanting to break all ties with the GOP and get out on their own to fight both parties.

        The thinking of the Tea Party currently is that for 2010, the best vessel for them to use is the GOP.

        Now, what that actually means – is anyone’s guess.

        But I took it to mean that after 2010, there will be more debate within their movement as to their vessel they choose to use?

        Of course, as was pointed out awhile back, there seems to be two Tea Party movements and perhaps one of them needs to change their name so as to not get the bad publicity spilled on them from the other one?

  20. tosmarttobegop

    The only tie to health care and the vote yesterday is not about health care it is about being unfocused and indecisive. With people hurting and losing hope it is a natural reaction.

    • lilacluvr

      But I do think that the current health care reform bill is not what is needed to be passed.

      I think Democrats need to go back to the basics and fight for public option or single payer.

      I know that is not what is popular in the Democratic circles right now – but that is the truth.

      If the Democrats are seen as pushing this current health care reform bill down the peoples’ throat, then that will be the start of the next 40 yrs in the political wilderness for the Democrats .

      I am not crazy about the current health care reform bill – so to pass this bill just for the privilege of saying ‘we did something’, will backfire. – IMHO

      • The strange thing is, most conservatives would begrudgingly respect at least the idea that Obama would stand by what are supposed to be his liberal-leaning values, if he had started out demanding universal health care. Instead, the party, still smarting from the whipping they allowed themselves to undergo under Clinton, came out of the gate with PTSD and tried to find a way to “compromise.”

        I could have told them a thing or two about compromise. It is something all parties have to agree to. If even one party to an agreement cannot give concession, no true compromise can be reached. And there was never any indication that the GOP was giving an inch.

        So the administration did that fence-sitting thing that conservatives just DESPISE. If he was hoping for respect for compromise, all he got was disrespect for perceived weakness.

  21. lilacluvr

    I still think that yesterday’s election is really just the centrists/moderates being the ones that generally pull back on both parties from becoming too full of themselves.

    But, as I said previously, we shall see if Brown lives up to what he promised the voters in Massachusetts or if he just used them to gain access to that golden seat of power.

    But I’m betting on the other shoe to drop within the next 6 months. Scott Brown has not been well known up until now – how much of this GOP adulation and worshiping will go to Mr. Brown’s head and ego?

    Or, maybe I should say, how much of his soul has been sold to the GOP? And if they are looking for a ‘pure’ candidate, then did they really get what they thought they bought?

  22. One thing we could do is let go of our own partisanship and research the past few years, draw up lists of what legislation was passed — what passed when the Republicans had both chambers of Congress and the presidency; what passed after the 2006 elections and no longer did they have majorities in Congress; what passed in 2009 when democrats had the presidency and majorities in both Houses?

    Then, honestly look at those lists to see if we can discover that there is or isn’t someone working for Americans.

  23. lilacluvr

    The first and foremost thought of the voters today is this unemployment rate

    Until Obama and Congress gets to working on how to get jobs into this economy, then I don’t think anyone is safe politically.

    Obama has tied health care reform to the economy, of which he is correct to do so, but when a person is out of work and looking for work – I don’t think he/she really cares if everybody gets health care or not. That person sees only one thing – they are without a job .

    All politics local – as the saying goes – but all politics is personal also.

    • Maybe that’s what the saying actually means. They use the word local, but personal is what local means (can’t get much more local than YOU).

  24. I’ve gone looking for what was accomplished 2001 – 2008. This first article is written by Bradley A. Blakeman, deputy assistant to President George W. Bush 2001-2004. It has a biased slant, yet does list some of the legislation passed so is a start. Trying not to judge the impact of the legislation, just trying to see what was done.

    “In his two-term tenure as our president, Bush prosecuted two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq against tyrants and terrorists committed to harming us and our allies; he presided over the largest reorganization of the U.S. government with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security; he presided over the most extensive reorganization of our intelligence agencies and created the position of intelligence chief; he responded to the largest natural disaster to hit America, Hurricane Katrina; he presided over the largest transformation of the military; he faced a historic collapse of our housing markets, financial institutions, and industries; he instituted historic legislation to keep America safer with the enactment of the Patriot Act and FISA; he faced the national disaster of Space Shuttle Columbia and the task of rebuilding that program; he had the duty to appoint and seek the confirmation of one Supreme Court justice and the Supreme Court chief justice, and the list goes on.

    The best that can be said of the presidency of George W. Bush is that he kept us safe and had the foresight to create and re-create government institutions and infrastructure to do just that. His responses to the overwhelming challenges he has faced were carried out with calm, honesty, and best intentions.

    Other notable accomplishments include No Child Left Behind, the education bill that improved the accountability and performance of students and teachers; expanded membership in NATO to include new democracies and allies; the reformation of Medicare, which added prescription drug benefits to over 40 million Americans; strengthening of America’s healthcare systems through the creation of health saving accounts; providing unprecedented resources for our veterans; enacting sweeping energy reform with the signing of the first comprehensive energy bill in a generation; keeping taxes low, which created growth and full employment for almost his entire tenure; providing more funding to fight AIDS in America and Africa than any previous president or any government on Earth; and presiding over the most extensive and collegial presidential transition in our nation’s history.”

    http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/14/for-bush-43-a-job-well-done-considering-the-challenges.html

  25. lilacluvr

    Like I was saying, I will reserve my judgment on Scott Brown until he has been in office for a few months. Here is what Glenn Beck had to say about the new Senator from Massachusetts.

    Perhaps Beck is feeling nervous and threatened about how popular Brown is now or is it more than that?

    Glenn Beck Scott Brown ‘Dead Intern’: Beck Slams Brown For ‘Available’ Daughters Comments

    Huffington Post | Nicholas Graham First Posted: 01-20-10 12:56 PM | Updated: 01-20-10 01:37 PM

    As Steve Krakauer of Mediaite points out, Glenn Beck’s radio show is the Wild West compared to the relative tameness of his Fox News television program.

    Beck humorously, but harshly, slammed Scott Brown, Republican winner of the race for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat in Massachusetts, for proclaiming on national television, during his victory speech, that his two daughters were “available.”

    Beck launched into a long rant about how Brown had just put his daughters up for grabs on a “meat market” and how shocked he was that anyone could say something like that on national television. Then came that moment that differentiates Beck on the radio from Beck on the TV: he started comparing Brown to Gary Condit.

    I want a chastity belt on this man. I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy. This one could end with a dead intern. I’m just saying. It could end with a dead intern.
    Glenn Beck does not pull punches.

    • “I want a chastity belt on this man. I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy. This one could end with a dead intern. I’m just saying. It could end with a dead intern.”

      WHO watches this guy? That is some sick sh#%!!

      (sorry, but ewwwww)

      Maybe someone should be keeping an eye on Beck because he sure twisted an innocent remark into something sexually violent. Our comments can sometimes reveal our innermost thoughts.

  26. WSClark

    The stock market certainly is happy with Brown’s election – down 160 points.

    • lilacluvr

      I thought the Republicans were hooping it up about the health care insurance companies stock going up?

      • But remember, Lilac, without the health-care insurance reform bill that benefited them the most, they don’t have as much to look forward to.

  27. David B

    SO the plan is to gut and compromise an already gutted and compromised reform bill?

  28. tosmarttobegop

    If it is to be passed in spite of how bad it is then yes gut it but not compromise.
    Take out what is bad and leave what is meaningful, leave what makes sense but not what it turns out was not well thought out.

    The mandate needs to go as the reasoning for it is gone.
    Preexisting needs to be made fair and affordable the way it is written is the same as not doing anything.

    The point being to pass it simply to snub the Cons is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

    • lilacluvr

      I agree 100%

      And what good will it do for any Democrat without their nose? How could they tell when a Republican is near and cannot smell the stench of greed?

    • No mandate would have been necessary with universal health care and no worries about pre-existing conditions. No worries about sky-rocketing premiums, either. And cost-cutting would have been immediate because universal health care could be done so much more cheaply by the government who owes no profit to shareholders. A lot of unnecessary middle men would have been cut out right off the bat.

      The health insurance companies did not want universal health care because it would have put them out of business. The hospitals, doctors, medical supply companies, pharmaceutical companies and nursing home/rehabilitation corporations did not want universal health care because it would mean that eventually all of their charges would be regulated by the government.

      So we didn’t get it. We didn’t even get to THINK about it. It is really the only reasonable answer to the health care dilemma, but it was immediately rejected because Democrats would not be able to collect all that wonderful money if they did what was right for the citizenry, because it would not have benefitted the corporate masters.

      And that is what this comes down to. And it should make everyone, I mean EVERYONE, absolutely furious. But people are willing to accept the fraud and corruption in Washington, shrug their shoulders, place blame on the other party, play the victim and move on with their lives.

  29. tosmarttobegop

    Again the Republicans have not truly been the enemy it has been within the Democratic party.