Originally Posted By ecdc Rachel Maddow put it best on her show last night: "Newsflash: the Democrats have gone from having one of the largest majorities in history to having one of the largest majorities in history." Republicans are cheering the potential death of healthcare. We should all be weeping for the potential death of our very system of government. You need 60 votes to do anything. It's extremely rare in our history for any party to have those kind of numbers, and yet even with them, we can't get anything done. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, yet here we are. I don't care that Scott Brown won; but it's hard not to feel pretty dejected over the broken state of our government.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<You need 60 votes to do anything. It's extremely rare in our history for any party to have those kind of numbers, and yet even with them, we can't get anything done.>> It's really frustrating, isn't it? It seems like neither party can actually get anything done without there being some kind of crisis or National Security issue forcing their hand. But when you really think about it, the Democratic party may have a majority in name, but they don't exactly all fall in line with one another. All of the senators and house members each have their own states and agendas to see to, and they don't seem to be able to put those aside to get larger issues passed. The whole thing is just sad, and I think we can pretty much kiss any real health care reform, or energy policy good-bye.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think what we are seeing is the beginning of the end of career politicians. I am not surprised this is happening. We are a country where on each passing day we are expecting things to happen faster and faster. If you promise "change" are you giving a timeline on that promise? To be honest, I'm not sure it is fair that people are expecting a lot after one year but...they are expecting a lot after one year. Since it is getting bogged down (and for whatever reason you want to pin that on) the incumbents are taking the blame. That isn't to say the Republicans should throw a party. Because, the same thing will happen to them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think it shows, once again, the importance of moderates in this country. The politician that attracts the moderates wins. Worked for Obama, worked for Brown and it'll work again next time around. And once again, sitting there like a giant unclaimed prize is this huge amount of middle of the roaders, people dissatisfied with the Dems and Reps, waiting for some party to call their own. I wonder if it'll ever happen?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Worked for Obama, worked for Brown and it'll work again next time around. >> Brown did not campaign as a moderate. He campaigned at Tea Party rallies and whipped up the anti-abortion/anti-gay crowd as his base. Now, in his TV ads, he made no substantive claims on any issue so I guess you can say that was moderate. His rhetoric on the stump was in the tea party kooky realm.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I think it shows, once again, the importance of moderates in this country. The politician that attracts the moderates wins.<< Hmmmm .... >>Massachusetts voters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election a year ago and either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown or simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the election Tuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they'll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election. A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street." A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote. In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies. << >>The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- or didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough and 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it. Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn't go far enough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it went too far.<< <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/obama-backers-more-commit_n_429673.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...673.html</a> (Caveat - this is Massachusettes (sic) we're talking about, so this doesn't necessarily negate 2oony's point.)
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<"Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.">> So they vote in a Republican - a party with even stronger ties to Wall Street? How does this make any sense?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It doesn't. But the bankers are laughing all the way to the... well... bank.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<But the bankers are laughing all the way to the... well... bank.>> The sad thing is that it appears that both parties have very strong ties to Wall Street - or, at least, to the people from Wall Street who support their campaigns. They all talk a good story to get the votes, and then don't do anything to reign in the abuses.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>How does this make any sense?<< (1) Obviously there's more to it than just that. The fact that Coakley's campaign was incompetent no doubt had a lot to do with it. (2) I'm no longer sure you can say with certainty that the Repubs have closer ties to Wall Street than the Dems, based on the evidence of the last several months. (3) A progressive who was dead set on stopping Obamacare would be just as likely to vote for Brown as a tea partier who was dead set on stopping Obamacare. Truth be told, based on what I know about the situation, I'd probably have voted for Brown myself. I wouldn't have been particularly happy about it, but I'd'a done it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It wasn't that long ago we had good laws to rein in the abuses. They lasted for about 70 years and did just what they were supposed to do - prevent another great depression. Take them away, and voila! We very nearly have another one. There are some good people in Congress talking about re-enacting those safeguards; unfortunately, they're mostly "back-bench" type Democrats (with a couple of exceptions like Frank) and the leadership has not made it a priority. And Obama has proposed a fee on bailed out banks to recover our money. So there's SOME movement - just not enough.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And where was Massachussetts Senator Barney Frank during this MA special election? He has a solid standing among Massachussetts voters, and a pragmatic way of speaking that could have lent stark contrast between the two choices. Who knows if it would have made a difference, but he could have tried a bit more. As for the disgruntled dems who are wanting more regulation for wall street, this isn't the way to go about it. The president has already proposed the "bank tax". Now who would be opposed to that? Republican politicans, that's who. And bless `em, they're actually trying to get the rank and file to go along with them on this, and they may yet succeed. Republicans have shown a willingness to vote against their own self-interests time and again, and of course Fox is doing their damnedest to demogogue against this bank tax. The bonuses being passed out in the financial sector are reported to total well north of $100 billion, nearly 1% of GDP. Obama is looking for about $9 billion, a small fraction. Let's let that sink in - over $100 billion dollars - 1% of total GDP - going to financial sector fat cats - just for 2009 alone. Obama is seeking less than ten percent of that. If the US government (meaning "us") is going to guarantee loans from US banks - which is essentially what happened over the past two years - this vastly improves the standing of these US banks within the financial sector. Creating a fund that will support bank failures is sound fiscal policy. But just watch as Fox works it's magic, and soon the teapartiers and dupes will be up in arms about "Obama's socialist policies" regarding banks. They were able to get people to oppose 'health care' fergawdsakes, so why not bank taxes? Why is this even controversial?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>why not bank taxes? Why is this even controversial?<< Because it isn't being applied fairly. Two wrongs don't make a right (and neither do 2,874,386, which is what I suspect we're up to now). I wish someone could explain this to me ... We're mad because these guys are getting these huge bonuses. So why in the name of Henry J. Kaiser don't we TAX THE HUGE BONUSES? I don' onnerstan dis contry.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << And where was Massachussetts Senator Barney Frank during this MA special election? He has a solid standing among Massachussetts voters, and a pragmatic way of speaking that could have lent stark contrast between the two choices. >> Rep. Frank is probably rejoicing with Brown's victory yesterday. He's shown nothing but reluctance at forwarding issues in his committee, slowing down processes every step of the way. Then there's the fact that he is the de facto leader of the gay and lesbian caucus -- which he has done absolutely nothing for and now he has a great excuse to continue to do nothing but still pander to those poor folks for campaign cash.
Originally Posted By ecdc I think wahoo's post three nails it. Republicans are happy now, but it will happen to them. And I'm willing to be more patient with Obama, but most aren't. What do you do in a country when email isn't fast enough so everyone goes to Twitter?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << (1) Obviously there's more to it than just that. The fact that Coakley's campaign was incompetent no doubt had a lot to do with it. >> This is a broad generalization, popularized by media soundbytes, but it simply isn't true. The Coakley campaign wasn't any more or less competent than previous efforts in Massachusetts. It certainly got caught off guard late in the game by a surging Brown who was working hard on the Tea Party circuit. When Coakley fought back, the media immediately characterized her as "cold" and bitchy -- the typical stereotypes levied at women in politics when they act too much like their male counterparts. Meanwhile, Brown ran a folksy ad campaign about him, his pickup truck, and cutting your taxes. The national media picked up on the polling numbers and drove the last nail in the coffin by playing up the horse race and upset stories to the point of inevitability.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << (2) I'm no longer sure you can say with certainty that the Repubs have closer ties to Wall Street than the Dems, based on the evidence of the last several months. >> The last several months are a complete anomaly. How can any administration address the failure and collapse of the financial industry without getting its hands dirty by involving itself with the leaders of that industry? There was absolutely no way to win in this bank situation. There were so many pieces and parts failing, such enormous sums of money being thrown around to fix things, that it was entirely predictable that not everything would go smoothly. You can go back to my posts from 2007 and 2008 -- Obama (or whoever was elected in 2008) was doomed to failure with this whole mess. Quite honestly, I am surprised that things have not gotten much, much worse. And to his credit, the President has quietly begun to correct the GOP-driven deficiencies at the EPA and Department of Labor where policy and regulations were set back by nearly a decade of neglect due to partisan officials who looked the other way while the GOP's big business friends got whatever they wanted. And don't forget how Treasury was looking the other way during the years of gambling that led this financial ruin.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << (3) A progressive who was dead set on stopping Obamacare would be just as likely to vote for Brown as a tea partier who was dead set on stopping Obamacare. >> A progressive should be much less narrowminded and focused on a single issue than to allow the GOP to obstruct the rest of Congress' non-healthcare agenda from this point forward.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>This is a broad generalization, popularized by media soundbytes, but it simply isn't true. << <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/saving-health-care-after_b_429385.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...385.html</a> >>There are simply an endless number of reasons to criticize Martha Coakley today. That her campaign chose to go dark after the primary rather than running ads; that Coakley herself did only 20 events during the general election, compared to nearly 70 for her opponent; that when they did finally run ads, the Coakley campaign spelled Massachusetts wrong. There were the shocking quotes from Coakley, one decrying shaking hands with voters at Fenway, the other calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan. And of course, there was the Election Day memo from Coakley's advisers, who blamed the loss (in advance of the polls closing) on the White House and the failure of national Democrats to pay the race due attention. As a candidate, saying Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan doesn't just make you seem like you're out of touch; it means you're out of touch. As a political strategist, believing you can save your reputation by attacking the White House before polls have closed is proof in itself that you aren't very good at messaging, and should consider another career. There is no sympathy to be had for Coakley. The laziness of her campaign, the lack of due care paid to the legacy of the senator that preceded her, the recklessness with which she put the entire Democratic agenda at risk -- none of it can be understated, dismissed or defended. There is no spin. Not any at all. Martha Coakley should be deeply, deeply ashamed. That isn't to say that she isn't smart and capable. But on the campaign trail, she was neither.<< ----- >>allow the GOP to obstruct the rest of Congress' non-healthcare agenda from this point forward.<< Maybe not. Buried on WND I found this quote: >>Brown also didn't even wait until he reached Washington to put Democrats on notice that their 60-vote dominance in the Senate was over, addressing the issue of health care reform. "It's going to raise taxes and cost jobs. It's going to do irreparable harm to our economy and I know we can do better," Brown said. "I will work with Democrats and Republicans and pledge no more closed meetings and the business has to be open. Again, we can do better." << <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122548" target="_blank">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f...d=122548</a> "We can do better" doesn't sound like he's anti-health care reform to me, just anti-this version of it. And Republican or not, he still has to represent Massachusetts.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << "We can do better" doesn't sound like he's anti-health care reform to me, just anti-this version of it. And Republican or not, he still has to represent Massachusetts. >> He stated in his press conference today that "Massachusetts already has health care" and advocated an approach where Congress gave up the effort and let other states find their own solutions. That indicates that he doesn't see any need to do anything at the national level. But I'm not so much worried about healthcare as the rest of the progressive agenda. It is dead if there isn't a way to beat the filibuster.
