Jump to content

Ted Kennedy Is Spinning


BryanS

Recommended Posts

Wow, I hope that contains typos.

Chalk full of em - I fixed it. Thats why when it matters I dont pull numbers out of my butt - I am usually wrong with them.

Nah, I doubt you read anything like that since its not true. 3,048,438 voted in the Presidential election and 2,249,026 voted in this election.

That was from the wrong article, I already said that was wrong - it was that more people voted in this Special election than any special election in 20 years (dont know if that was state only or national)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's not about Obama...yet. But it will be. Obama promised CHANGE in terms of both policy and the level of discourse to a general electorate that doesn't understand concepts of checks and balances. If the labor market can't pull out of the crapper and Obama can't get a congress to work towards the major policy overhauls that he promised, then he's going to have to deal with a base with waning enthusiasm. Add to that that that minority turnout in 2012 probably won't be so impressive as it was when Obama was a 'colorful' novelty in 2008.

I'd speculate that coming up on November, congress (and particularly the House) will lack the political willpower to pass additional stimulus bills or other huge spending bills because they don't want to alienate the fickle populists that swept them into office. Now consider that Republican obstructionism has been remarkably successful to date considering that they've been so completely marginalized. Consider what happens if they take back the House or even get within striking distance. They'll block stimulus and potentially bring about a 1933 scenario, dashing hopes of recovery. Obama will try to deflect criticism in their direction, but without highly visible programs akin to the CCC or TVA to convey an image that he is a man of action, Obama may instead be characterized by his rivals as something more like Jimmy Carter than FDR.

So yes, the strategic outcome of this special election is relevant to national politics and to Obama's political future.

Here's the problem as I see it. When a political party is in a defensive position, as the Republicans are now, they do a tremendous job of sending out a cohesive message and rally all the troops at their disposal. As such, they have nothing to prove except their opposition to "business as usual." The problem is, when the party gains power, as the Democrats did with a vengeance in 2008, the old factions and in-fighting boils to the surface. Unity fades and isolated ideologies surface, and it becomes every man for himself, so to speak. The coherent message disappears. What's disappointing with the Democrats, and what I believe the masses are actually upset about, is that after they gained power, they squandered it. Rather than rally behind the efforts of Obama, the man that brought so many of them to the table, they've been a bigger thorn in his side than the Republicans. The Republicans have just had to sit back and say, "See? See, we told you Democrats suck." And, on the one hand they're entirely correct. With 60% of the vote in the senate, an overwhelming majority in the house, a sitting Democrat president and a somewhat moderate supreme court, reform on a multitude of levels should have been a no-brainer. Instead, we've got a muddled mess of compromises, back-stabbing and blue dogs. If anything, assuming this election was more than just about a yes/no vote on healthcare reform, it was about the lack of a backbone in the Democratic party. Some may take this as a jab at Obama's leadership qualities, but others (myself included) see this as more of a no-win situation for a president consigned to a crappy time in the history of the world. He takes over while we're engaged in two wars, with an economy in the crapper and swirling around in the bottom of the bowl AND with the presence of the most intense media outlets the world has ever known scrutinizing his every move and jumping on every opportunity to lay blame on his feet for all the world's ills.

It seems our attention spans are continuing to get shorter and shorter; and Republicans, when you regain control (and you will eventually - change is inevitable), you better be prepared to maintain a rigid cohesiveness or the braying mules who comprise the electorate will just as harshly judge you. You may be able to convince the voters the world was safer with Bush as president and that terrorists didn't try to attack us and all that jazz, but when you're actually in power, you'll actually be held accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Marksmu, you may enjoy the conservative resurgence the Republicans are currently enjoying, but in another 20 or so years, when the last of the greatest generation and the first of the baby boomers have died off, the playing field will further equalize towards a true middle ground.

Knowing your posts, I would say that a "middle ground" for you is "quite left" in the grand scheme of the country's history. But just to make things clear, what is your example of a country with a "middle ground"...your definition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

post='354724']If you had a healthcare plan and lost your job, you qualify for Cobra for 18 months....not just any Cobra, but government subsidized Cobra. The good ole US of A will pay 60% of your health care costs for 18 months. If you cant find a job your willing to do in 18 months, there is a problem with what you think your worthy of. Some people have been forced to take jobs that are less than what they think they are worth, but there are jobs available if your willing to work for them. Just now, you have to be more qualified, have more experience, and appear more healthy to an employer. Many employers now refuse to hire smokers.

You have a woefully misguided view of what COBRA is and its relative costs. I really hope your father's company manages to stay afloat in this economy because the real world will be very harsh to you if you were to actually be forced to find a job and pay your bills on your own. I don't intend that as an insult. I'm just amazed at how high your head is in those clouds.

The bill DID tax what they call Cadillac health care plans. Unions exempted themselves from it, we are not so lucky. What we offer, and what many companies offer fell under the definition of a Cadillac health care plan b/c the government got to value the plan, and determine whether the benefit exceeded what they would consider $8,000 worth of benefit.

I get my news from Local News, and Independent news sources, many of them linked off Drudge, and then of course from Googles news page, and CNN.

And it is common sense, that you can not add millions of covered individuals, and NOT have a shortage of doctors or other items. Its just not possible the law of supply and demand is there to be seen....the system can handle small fluctuations, it cannot handle a 1/3 increase at the flip of a switch. We dont have the doctors available for that kind of increase.

Sure we do. They all work as ER doctors now though. Funny anecdote, a friend of mine who does happen to work as an ER doctor has noted a dramatic increase in the number of patients he sees on a regular basis since the economy has sunk and more people now find themselves without employment (psst... and insurance).

Knowing your posts, I would say that a "middle ground" for you is "quite left" in the grand scheme of the country's history. But just to make things clear, what is your example of a country with a "middle ground"...your definition?

Knowing your age and post history, I'd say you have little context on which to base your opinion of "quite left". No offense, but your grasp of history is tenuous at best, and your knowledge of contemporary political contexts are all based on the last ten years or so. I appreciate your commitment to furthering your education in order to advance your self-edification, but I think it'll do you a world of good to actually begin researching before commenting. So you know, our country has always fought internally between the right and the left, and ultimately we've without fail made the responsible and moral decision every time. A hundred and fifty years ago, the conservatives tenaciously fought for their right to own another person. Today, we still struggle with racism (Fox News pundits are a great example of this - Marksmu, I threw this in just to get under your skin). Change may be slow, but it comes. The correct decision may not be forthwith, but we slowly fall into every progressive mold. Personally, I think it's silly that people would even fight so much against change. Change is inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem as I see it. When a political party is in a defensive position, as the Republicans are now, they do a tremendous job of sending out a cohesive message and rally all the troops at their disposal. As such, they have nothing to prove except their opposition to "business as usual." The problem is, when the party gains power, as the Democrats did with a vengeance in 2008, the old factions and in-fighting boils to the surface. Unity fades and isolated ideologies surface, and it becomes every man for himself, so to speak. The coherent message disappears. What's disappointing with the Democrats, and what I believe the masses are actually upset about, is that after they gained power, they squandered it. Rather than rally behind the efforts of Obama, the man that brought so many of them to the table, they've been a bigger thorn in his side than the Republicans. The Republicans have just had to sit back and say, "See? See, we told you Democrats suck." And, on the one hand they're entirely correct. With 60% of the vote in the senate, an overwhelming majority in the house, a sitting Democrat president and a somewhat moderate supreme court, reform on a multitude of levels should have been a no-brainer. Instead, we've got a muddled mess of compromises, back-stabbing and blue dogs. If anything, assuming this election was more than just about a yes/no vote on healthcare reform, it was about the lack of a backbone in the Democratic party. Some may take this as a jab at Obama's leadership qualities, but others (myself included) see this as more of a no-win situation for a president consigned to a crappy time in the history of the world. He takes over while we're engaged in two wars, with an economy in the crapper and swirling around in the bottom of the bowl AND with the presence of the most intense media outlets the world has ever known scrutinizing his every move and jumping on every opportunity to lay blame on his feet for all the world's ills.

It seems our attention spans are continuing to get shorter and shorter; and Republicans, when you regain control (and you will eventually - change is inevitable), you better be prepared to maintain a rigid cohesiveness or the braying mules who comprise the electorate will just as harshly judge you. You may be able to convince the voters the world was safer with Bush as president and that terrorists didn't try to attack us and all that jazz, but when you're actually in power, you'll actually be held accountable.

Perfectly stated. I wish Obama would have rammed what he wanted down everyone's throats from the beginning instead of trying to find middle ground. For some reason he wanted to be fair... so he extended an olive branch to a bunch of neocon children who had no intention of being statesmen. Instead of trying to bring about legitamate solutions to a pressing problem that our nation faces, they just scream at the top of their lungs like a child in a store... making the parent look like an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem as I see it. When a political party is in a defensive position, as the Republicans are now, they do a tremendous job of sending out a cohesive message and rally all the troops at their disposal. As such, they have nothing to prove except their opposition to "business as usual." The problem is, when the party gains power, as the Democrats did with a vengeance in 2008, the old factions and in-fighting boils to the surface. Unity fades and isolated ideologies surface, and it becomes every man for himself, so to speak. The coherent message disappears. What's disappointing with the Democrats, and what I believe the masses are actually upset about, is that after they gained power, they squandered it. Rather than rally behind the efforts of Obama, the man that brought so many of them to the table, they've been a bigger thorn in his side than the Republicans. The Republicans have just had to sit back and say, "See? See, we told you Democrats suck." And, on the one hand they're entirely correct. With 60% of the vote in the senate, an overwhelming majority in the house, a sitting Democrat president and a somewhat moderate supreme court, reform on a multitude of levels should have been a no-brainer. Instead, we've got a muddled mess of compromises, back-stabbing and blue dogs. If anything, assuming this election was more than just about a yes/no vote on healthcare reform, it was about the lack of a backbone in the Democratic party. Some may take this as a jab at Obama's leadership qualities, but others (myself included) see this as more of a no-win situation for a president consigned to a crappy time in the history of the world. He takes over while we're engaged in two wars, with an economy in the crapper and swirling around in the bottom of the bowl AND with the presence of the most intense media outlets the world has ever known scrutinizing his every move and jumping on every opportunity to lay blame on his feet for all the world's ills.

It seems our attention spans are continuing to get shorter and shorter; and Republicans, when you regain control (and you will eventually - change is inevitable), you better be prepared to maintain a rigid cohesiveness or the braying mules who comprise the electorate will just as harshly judge you. You may be able to convince the voters the world was safer with Bush as president and that terrorists didn't try to attack us and all that jazz, but when you're actually in power, you'll actually be held accountable.

Nicely put, I agree completely. That post makes up for when you made a baseball reference about Schilling's RBIs...he's a pitcher!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing your age and post history, I'd say you have little context on which to base your opinion of "quite left". No offense, but your grasp of history is tenuous at best, and your knowledge of contemporary political contexts are all based on the last ten years or so. I appreciate your commitment to furthering your education in order to advance your self-edification, but I think it'll do you a world of good to actually begin researching before commenting. So you know, our country has always fought internally between the right and the left, and ultimately we've without fail made the responsible and moral decision every time. A hundred and fifty years ago, the conservatives tenaciously fought for their right to own another person. Today,

You could have made your point without blaming his youth, but you make very good points.

The thing is, if he asks for our viewpoints, we owe him an honest try at it.

The views we currently have were certainly not attained by our education system, but rather by experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a woefully misguided view of what COBRA is and its relative costs. I really hope your father's company manages to stay afloat in this economy because the real world will be very harsh to you if you were to actually be forced to find a job and pay your bills on your own. I don't intend that as an insult. I'm just amazed at how high your head is in those clouds.

First of all, I know more about Cobra, then you could ever wish to know. I know EXACTLY how much it costs. It is different for every employer b/c every employer pays a different amount for their health care based on their group....another thing I know infinitely more than you do, b/c I alone purchase health care for over 700 lives, something unless you have done, you will never understand the complexities of. I know not only what the costs of Cobra are, but I can tell you how much as a percentage of the former employees check it would require. I know not only the costs, but the ins/out of administering it and the laws that go along with it. So, to tell me that I dont know what something that I deal with DAILY is...well I dont mean this as an insult, but your an eff-in idiot.

Second, I support myself quite easily and I could do so at any number of companies. You see, I choose degrees that are ALWAYS employable. Engineers can almost always finds jobs. Couple an engineering degree with a law degree, and I find it is actually quite simple to find work. PERIOD...there may be millions of Americans without jobs, but there are not thousands of Americans with both an engineering degree and a law degree who are unemployed. In fact, I have quite a few friends who have both and all of them are gainfully employed as well. In fact I dont know a single engineer/lawyer who is unemployed. And guess what? My dad didnt grade my papers to get me into college, to make good enough grades, to get accepted to a good law school, and to pass the bar...all those things were done amazingly without parental help.

You can take personal shots all day long, it only makes you appear as desparate as your political party....but no offense or anything, I don't mean that as an insult. I mean you seem literate enough, your english degree probably gets you plenty of work editing the chronicle.

Knowing your age and post history, I'd say you have little context on which to base your opinion of "quite left". No offense, but your grasp of history is tenuous at best, and your knowledge of contemporary political contexts are all based on the last ten years or so. I appreciate your commitment to furthering your education in order to advance your self-edification, but I think it'll do you a world of good to actually begin researching before commenting. So you know, our country has always fought internally between the right and the left, and ultimately we've without fail made the responsible and moral decision every time. A hundred and fifty years ago, the conservatives tenaciously fought for their right to own another person. Today, we still struggle with racism (Fox News pundits are a great example of this - Marksmu, I threw this in just to get under your skin). Change may be slow, but it comes. The correct decision may not be forthwith, but we slowly fall into every progressive mold. Personally, I think it's silly that people would even fight so much against change. Change is inevitable.

No offense, but knowing your post history, you are what average Americans call a Liberal Democrat. You are out there with Barack, you are out there with Pelosi, you are out there with Chavez, and Castro - Your beliefs are not central, or even close to it. The fact that this country is shifting left slowly is not because its the correct path to success and prosperity, its because the liberals have been successful in controlling the media, and to a lesser extent academia (up until now) and because they have driven this disgusting political correctness into everyone, and made people afraid to stand up and say what they really feel because they fear being chastised. But people are sick of it now...they are tired of working so somebody else does not have to. They are tired of seeing 35% of their paycheck go to some loser who didnt want to goto college or does not want to work for whatever reason.

People are getting sick and tired of people feeling entitled to something they have never lifted a finger for. Case and point - welfare reciepents are bitching about how LONG it takes to get their food stamps, and how its inconvenient to stand in line. BIG FREAKING DEAL. I DO NOT CARE how long you have to stand there. If your getting it for free the only word out of your mouth needs to be thank you, and what can I do for you!

Ya you touched a nerve a bit here - I work 10-12 hour days getting paid far less than I could earn elsewhere if I wanted too, and I pay a crap load in taxes more than I believe is fair so that people like you can get their tax payer subsidized internet and come on here, and tell people like me that I dont understand something, dont do enough, or know the plight of the common person because I make an honest living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey folks - I'm a little late to this party but please refrain from personal attacks, name calling, and so on and so on and so on and so on..

Now back to the regularly scheduled back and forth...

Thank you, sev, I'm out...just making a point on viewpoint. I acknowledge my flaiming here, which is not my style.

Grace to HAIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the polling information i read stated that the independents who would normally vote democratic in mass, went the other way. evidently bank bailouts is a big issue there.

It's a big issue everywhere. However, simply put, if a house is imploding (sorry!), the best reaction is not to have lunch with the architect to find the emotive reasons behind its implosion. W recognized this. O recognized this. Conservative and liberal economists have recognized this. It's very painful to us who thought that "banks were to big to fail", and that, once again, they were " the smartest people in the room." That is a pain we need to absorb and dissolve, but build as a knowledge. Otherwise, an Enron becomes a Stanford becomes a....

The other issue in Massachusetts is that the great majority (I heard 98% on NPR this morning) are covered by healthcare. Why do they want to buy into a national healthcare project where their federal tax dollars would potentially be used to enhance healthcare in certain states where people are widely not insured, like states that begin with the letter "T". They have already acheived what is being vied for in the current healthcare packages. Personal pocketbook provincialism? Hmmmm.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but your an eff-in idiot.

Oh, Irony! Why do you tempt me so?

your english degree probably gets you plenty of work editing the chronicle.

English degree? Wrong. Fail. Competency in the proper use of my native tongue should hardly be a sign that I've devoted the lion's share of my education studying it. It's almost sad you feel borderline illiteracy is normal. Almost. Just almost.

No offense, but knowing your post history, you are what average Americans call a Liberal Democrat. You are out there with Barack, you are out there with Pelosi, you are out there with Chavez, and Castro

Chavez and Castro, huh? I've got to hand it to you, Marksmu, you've done yet another excellent Glenn Beck impression.

And really, no offense. Really. My science background pretty much prevents me from being anything but blunt when making observations. If you don't like it, well... too bad. I'm not taking a sensitivity training course to spare your tender emotions. No offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue in Massachusetts is that the great majority (I heard 98% on NPR this morning) are covered by healthcare. Why do they want to buy into a national healthcare project where their federal tax dollars would potentially be used to enhance healthcare in certain states where people are widely not insured, like states that begin with the letter "T". They have already acheived what is being vied for in the current healthcare packages. Personal pocketbook provincialism? Hmmmm.....

last i had read, mass had a predicted 5 billion dollar shortfall this yr. they've upped their sales tax 25%. will be interesting to see how the people (and businesses) take that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the notion that ted is spinning in his grave because someone from another political party (with opposing views) was elected by constituents of a district... insulting.

I find the notion that Ted is spinning in his grave... disturbing. That would mean he's not actually dead, which would mean he'd have been buried alive! That's just horrifying to consider.

And to think he's still alive without food or water for this long too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last i had read, mass had a predicted 5 billion dollar shortfall this yr. they've upped their sales tax 25%. will be interesting to see how the people (and businesses) take that.

Sounds to me like we should start building more skyscrapers in downtown and midtown so we can accommodate all those fleeing higher taxes, snow, and crappy baseball teams. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last i had read, mass had a predicted 5 billion dollar shortfall this yr. they've upped their sales tax 25%. will be interesting to see how the people (and businesses) take that.

Oh my god! That's horrible! Their sales tax is now equal to Texas'! Oh, but they don't have local taxes, so, at 6.25%, it is actually 24.2% LOWER than we pay in Houston (6.25% to 8.25%).

By the way, the tax hike took effect 6 months ago. If you really wanted to know how they took it, you could simply google the articles. I did, and the reaction was pretty much a big shrug, kinda the way you do when deciding whether to drive to the unincorporated areas to save a penny on YOUR sales tax. You don't do it, and neither did they. But, hey, a 25% increases SOUNDED like a big deal. Nice try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First things first, Scott Brown ran a brilliant campaign against a dud who thought she had it in the bag after the Democratic Primary.

Secondly, while this may have been a backlash to national healthcare reform, nobody is stating the obvious; that in a fairly progressive state that already passed healthcare reform locally, liberals and progressives are just as turned off by the current healtcare bill as are conservatives. The current bill is nothing more than a bribe to health insurance companies. Maybe that's why Coakley received 500,00 votes short of the number of registered Democrats in the Commonwealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, while teabaggers and Republicans are rejoicing nationally, few know his background. The man voted for healthcare reform as a State Senator. He supported cap and trade in the Statehouse. He supports a woman's right to choose. Now, he's begun to waiver on a few of these things in order to get millions from the national party, but you can't deny his voting record is WAY left of most Republicans. He's about as close to an old-school New England Country Club Republican as you can get with his Tufts and BC law degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, while teabaggers and Republicans are rejoicing nationally, few know his background. The man voted for healthcare reform as a State Senator. He supported cap and trade in the Statehouse. He supports a woman's right to choose. Now, he's begun to waiver on a few of these things in order to get millions from the national party, but you can't deny his voting record is WAY left of most Republicans. He's about as close to an old-school New England Country Club Republican as you can get with his Tufts and BC law degrees.

In other words, the Republican may as well have been Castro or Chavez, correct? 'Cause, I mean, he sounds like a total pinko commie to me.

He may as well be hiring more clerks in the welfare offices, for all Marksmu and I are concerned. I guess Marksmu and I should just sign our paychecks over to him since he'll be giving the whole thing away to lazy jobless loafers and irresponsible orphans anyhow. How can he even call himself a Republican if he doesn't hate poor people and women? That's what the Republican party was founded on, right? Hating the poor and the women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of hating women, Attica, the other Elephant in the room is the record for women running for larger offices in Massachusetts. They've never elected a woman to the United States Senate. Massholes have also never elected a woman to the Governor's office. Jane Swift backed into the role when Weld (another Republican) was appointed an ambassador. Additonally, I think there have only been four women elected to Congress from the Commonwealth and two of them were wives whose husbands had previously held office. Massachusetts should just go ahead and change names to Misogychusetts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of hating women, Attica, the other Elephant in the room is the record for women running for larger offices in Massachusetts. They've never elected a woman to the United States Senate. Massholes have also never elected a woman to the Governor's office. Jane Swift backed into the role when Weld (another Republican) was appointed an ambassador. Additonally, I think there have only been four women elected to Congress from the Commonwealth and two of them were wives whose husbands had previously held office. Massachusetts should just go ahead and change names to Misogychusetts!

The Tedder loved women... loved killing them, that is! Am I right, Marksmu? Am I right? Am I right?

What, too soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...