Much as I'd like this to be true, there's no way I'm gonna buy this until I see other polls in the same ballpark.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_45398436.pdf
QuoteSenate Race Competitive
Raleigh, N.C. – The race to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate is looking like a toss
up, with Republican Scott Brown up 48-47 on Martha Coakley.
Brown is benefiting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead
among independents for his surprisingly strong standing. Those planning to vote in the
special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16 point
margin, in contrast to his actual 26 point victory in the state.
That decline in turnout from Obama voters plagued Democratic candidates for Governor
in Virginia and New Jersey last fall. Beyond that 66% of Republicans say they're 'very
excited' about turning out while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment.
Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while
Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters. Both candidates are relatively
popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a
positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative.
Those folks planning to vote in the special election are actually opposed to Obama's
health care plan by a 47/41 margin and only narrowly express approval of the President's
overall job performance 44/43.
"The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats," said
Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. "Martha Coakley's complacent
campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step
it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable."
PPP surveyed 744 likely Massachusetts voters from January 7th to 9th. The margin of
error is +/-3.6%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may
introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
Complete results are attached and can be found at www.publicpolicypolling.com.
I don't know much about Public Policy Polling, but I'll note that I've seen a few sensational poll results from them over the last year (10% of Republicans think Obama is the anti-Christ sticks out) which makes me rather suspicious. This isn't as sensational as their other polls that I've read about and they could be wholly legit, but I'm a little bit suspicious of them.
TIMMAY TEAM HIJACK
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baltimoresun.com%2Fmedia%2Falternatethumbnails%2Fstorylink%2F2010-01%2F51556673-10132147.JPG&hash=ce161a42d9281271f50a6d4caa763f0a53d28203)
El Seed can be so mean.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2010, 08:26:52 PM
TIMMAY TEAM HIJACK
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baltimoresun.com%2Fmedia%2Falternatethumbnails%2Fstorylink%2F2010-01%2F51556673-10132147.JPG&hash=ce161a42d9281271f50a6d4caa763f0a53d28203)
I shut pics on my work computer off months ago. ^_^
Shielbh, they're a respected firm. I just think it's the fact that it's a special election that has the polling so scattershot, no one is quite sure who will actually show up on election day.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2010, 08:25:10 PM
I don't know much about Public Policy Polling, but I'll note that I've seen a few sensational poll results from them over the last year (10% of Republicans think Obama is the anti-Christ sticks out) which makes me rather suspicious. This isn't as sensational as their other polls that I've read about and they could be wholly legit, but I'm a little bit suspicious of them.
This is probably something wrong with Republicans rather then polls. Republicans believe in such bizarre things that it would make Hans blush.
Hrmm. What I find odd about this race is that the Democrats would view it as a sign they're too radical. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't; but does anyone really think Obama's done things that are too leftist for Massachussetts Democrats?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 11, 2010, 09:11:48 AM
Hrmm. What I find odd about this race is that the Democrats would view it as a sign they're too radical. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't; but does anyone really think Obama's done things that are too leftist for Massachussetts Democrats?
It is a strange bunch here. It may be.
I'm inclined to vote Republican because I am upset about the way this special election was handled. Changing the laws every few years is obnoxious.
I would vote Republican in this race just to watch the train wreck it could create with the health care bill.
When would the winner of this election take office?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 11, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 11, 2010, 09:11:48 AM
Hrmm. What I find odd about this race is that the Democrats would view it as a sign they're too radical. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't; but does anyone really think Obama's done things that are too leftist for Massachussetts Democrats?
It is a strange bunch here. It may be.
I'm inclined to vote Republican because I am upset about the way this special election was handled. Changing the laws every few years is obnoxious.
Agreed about changing the laws when it better suits the party here. And yes, Massachusetts voters, left leaning, also have a streak of libertarian in them. Largest group here is Independents, I think.
As for this poll, I'd have to see how it was done and the track record of that group. If it was likely voters then it should carry more weight. Other polls show the race tightening, and with Coakley leading. But to the point where some Dem heavy weights are speaking up for Coakley now, so some worry is apparent. Some of the Kennedy family members came out to endorse her, and I wonder how much weight that carries, or if people are a bit tired of the Kennedy era. I still say that Coakley is in the catbird seat, has great chances of winning. But Brown is a relative unknown so if he is even in the running that may say a lot.
Quote from: Fate on January 11, 2010, 09:32:51 AM
I would vote Republican in this race just to watch the train wreck it could create with the health care bill.
When would the winner of this election take office?
Funny you mention that about taking office. There was some talk of the Mass Governor working with Dems to delay the new candidate if Repub Brown wins it, in order to try and allow the health scare vote to go first. Maybe just talk and rumors but I don't put it past this Mass crowd given the way they've been changing special election laws to suit them.
2010 = Revenge of the RINOs?
Quote from: KRonn on January 11, 2010, 09:42:48 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 11, 2010, 09:32:51 AM
I would vote Republican in this race just to watch the train wreck it could create with the health care bill.
When would the winner of this election take office?
Funny you mention that about taking office. There was some talk of the Mass Governor working with Dems to delay the new candidate if Repub Brown wins it, in order to try and allow the health scare vote to go first. Maybe just talk and rumors but I don't put it past this Mass crowd given the way they've been changing special election laws to suit them.
I don't know that Republicans can complain. Franken lost a good part of his first year to the recount fight. Coleman was certainly helped by having Pawlenty as Governor.
Rasmussen has Coakley only up by 2% so I guess the race really is neck and neck.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/massachusetts-its-not-just-about.html
Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2010, 10:46:42 AM
2010 = Revenge of the RINOs?
I don't think so, though it'd be nice. I believe there are around 40+ primary challenges to House moderates by tea-party endorsed conservatives, even if only a few of them win it's an important shift. Similarly in the Senate John McCain's had to start running strong anti-Obama ads in Arizona, apparently it's because there's a far more conservative tea-partyista threatening a primary challenge and McCain's internal polling isn't as good as it should be.
Edit: Apparently the teabagging convention is happening in the, and I quote, 'Gaylord' hotel :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2010, 09:47:04 PM
Rasmussen has Coakley only up by 2% so I guess the race really is neck and neck.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/massachusetts-its-not-just-about.html
Coakley should benefit from increased turnout due to it being covered as a close race though.
Quote from: Fate on January 11, 2010, 11:08:47 AM
I don't know that Republicans can complain. Franken lost a good part of his first year to the recount fight. Coleman was certainly helped by having Pawlenty as Governor.
How so?
Oh dear lord...
Scott Brown will now win the gay vote, but heterosexual Republicans may have reservations. Where does the GOP find these guys?
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cosmopolitan.com%2Fcm%2Fcosmopolitan%2Fimages%2FTi%2FScott-Brown-new3.jpg&hash=afa6b0dfa1df2294278068410b15d447f3a2efa4)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 13, 2010, 01:48:28 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2010, 09:47:04 PM
Rasmussen has Coakley only up by 2% so I guess the race really is neck and neck.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/massachusetts-its-not-just-about.html
Coakley should benefit from increased turnout due to it being covered as a close race though.
Lots coverage nationally now which adds to enthusiasm for Brown too. And there seems to be a lot of increased interest and enthusiasm among Scott Brown supporters here in the State. But still, I think it's still Coakley's to lose. But Mass voters gave Kennedy and Kerry close runs when strong candidates ran against them. Mass voters also voted for Reagan once or maybe twice. So I don't know what to think, except to go by the better or more effective polling.
Heh, if Coakley wins then I might have to start considering Kerry as Massachusett's conservative Senator. :D
Interestingly, Obama has no plans to campaign for him, just like he had no plans to campaign for Coakley. Is it: Kiss of death?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 13, 2010, 01:46:08 PM
Interestingly, Obama has no plans to campaign for him, just like he had no plans to campaign for Coakley. Is it: Kiss of death?
Hmm, that is surprising though, that Obama isn't going to campaign for Coakley. Especially considering how important her vote would be for health scare. I think one possibility is that the Democrat's political machine felt this election was about wrapped up, after Coakley won the Dem primaries pretty easily, and against some good candidates. I don't think anyone expected this final vote to be close, or as close as it may seem to be, so Obama may just not have had planned on showing up. But others are now showing up, along with money for Coakley from Phiser and Novardis pharmacy, big hospital groups, SEIU union, all who probably have some interests in the current health care plan passing. That may or may not work for Coakley, depending on people's perceptions. But then, I don't know about the donors for Brown, which may likely also be some big time donors.
Phiser and Novardis pharmacy? :P
Quote from: garbon on January 13, 2010, 02:27:23 PM
Phiser and Novardis pharmacy? :P
Probably producers of generics. :P
Quote from: Fate on January 13, 2010, 10:13:46 AM
Scott Brown will now win the gay vote
IOW he'll win in a landslide in Massachusetts. :cool:
IOW?
"in other words"
Quote from: Caliga on January 14, 2010, 08:21:41 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 13, 2010, 10:13:46 AM
Scott Brown will now win the gay vote
IOW he'll win in a landslide in Massachusetts. :cool:
I bet Barney Frank has Scott Brown's centerfold framed on his office wall.
Two new polls out.
One has Coakley up 8 the other has brown up 4. The name of the org that has Coakley up suggests a Democratic affiliation.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_special_election-1144.html
538 agrees that the race is a toss up.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/ok-its-toss-up.html
Kron, Wags, is Coakley getting a lot of shit for this back home?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/
She got it before the election even came up.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 15, 2010, 01:57:25 AM
Kron, Wags, is Coakley getting a lot of shit for this back home?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/
I've heard some talk about it or other issues in the context of her as Attorney General, but I wouldn't say it's a big issue being discussed.
Right now Coakley is getting grief over her comments, to the Boston Globe, when they asked if she was not getting out among voters. She asked, what, should "I stand in the cold shaking hands, in front of Fenway Park", apparently after Brown was doing that. She shot herself in the foot on that one.
The same week one of her entourage knocked down a reporter on a Washington DC street. In the pictures you can see her standing right there, but she said later that she didn't see it happen. That was while on her tour in DC to meet with big Pharma, big Union and other well heeled groups. You know, all the kinds of groups that the Dems and liberals like to bash, except when making deals with them of course. Yeah, that's in the news. A bad week over all for Coakley, the week just prior to the election. But she has had the Democrat political machine revving up negative ads on Brown this week.
One local poll by Suffolk university political dept has Brown up by a few points, which is the margin of error. So what ever, still huge that a Repub is in the running whether he wins or not; very telling.
I'm going to laugh my ass off if "Ted Kennedy's" seat goes to the GOP in the very first election following his death. :lol:
This is what I've been hearing this week. Brown's favorability ratings are very high. And his name recognition is very high as well, for a relatively unknown not too long ago.
Quote
http://theamericano.com/2010/01/11/the-massachusetts-senate-race-too-close-to-call/
The Massachusetts Senate Race: Too Close to Call
| Print This Post Print This Post
Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47, according a Public Policy Polling survey released on Saturday. This is due to a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters Massachusetts.
After the Public Policy Polling survey finding that the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat was a toss-up, a Boston Globe poll released yesterday found Democrat Martha Coakley beating Republican Scott Brown by a 15-point margin.
The Globe poll was taken from Jan. 2-6th, while PPP was in the field from Jan. 7th-9th. The Globe only polled 81 independents, while PPP polled about 290. Such a difference in sample size could explain the wide difference in results among independents.
Rasmussen Reports had Coakley up by 9% in a poll that we wrote about last week. The election is next Tuesday, Jan. 19. The Democrats need a victory in this reliably blue state in order to keep President Obama's health care bill on track.
Tom Jensen, from the Public Policy Polling, points out several major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs in Massachusetts.
The electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008.
Obama took the state by 26 points then, but those planning to vote next week only report having voted for him by 16.
Republicans are considerably more enthusiastic and excited about turning out to vote than Democrats are.
Scott Brown has very good numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley.
Only 21% of Massachusetts voters have a favorable opinion of Congressional Republicans... but at the same time only 33% view Congressional Democrats favorably.
Among voters who have a negative take on both parties, who account for more than 20% of the electorate, Brown leads 74-21.
Brown's favorability spread is a remarkable +32, at 57/25. For some perspective on how good those numbers are, Bob McDonnell in Virginia was at a +20 spread with his state voters in the Public Policy Polling´s final survey there before going on to a 17 point victory.
Coakley can certainly still win this race, perhaps even by a comfortable margin. Here's what she needs to do, especially if she makes this race about Ted Kennedy's legacy.
Brown is surprisingly popular, but given his short time on the statewide political stage in Massachusetts, we cannot forget that the overall GOP brand is terrible with Massachusetts voters.
Public Policy Polling indicates that there is little doubt that Republicans and GOP leaning independents are going to come out and vote for Scott Brown.
As we approach the final ten days of this senate race in Massachusetts is well past the stage where Democrats can take it for granted that will happen.
With polls tightening in the special election, former president Bill Clinton says he will campaign for Democratic nominee Martha Coakley. Clinton will be in Boston with Democrat Senator John Kerry, on Friday.
The Americano / Agencies
Elections are going to be close in Massachussetts
Elections are going to be close in Massachussetts
Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47, according a Public Policy Polling survey released on Saturday. This is due to a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in Massachusetts.
After the Public Policy Polling survey finding that the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat was a toss-up, a Boston Globe poll released yesterday found Democrat Martha Coakley beating Republican Scott Brown by a 15-point margin.
The Globe poll was taken from Jan. 2-6th, while PPP was in the field from Jan. 7th-9th. The Globe only polled 81 independents, while PPP polled about 290. Such a difference in sample size could explain the wide difference in results among independents.
Rasmussen Reports had Coakley up by 9% in a poll that we wrote about last week. The election is next Tuesday, Jan. 19. The Democrats need a victory in this reliably blue state in order to keep President Obama's health care bill on track.
Tom Jensen, from the Public Policy Polling, points out several major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs in Massachusetts.
The electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008.
Obama took the state by 26 points then, but those planning to vote next week only report having voted for him by 16.
Republicans are considerably more enthusiastic and excited about turning out to vote than Democrats are.
Scott Brown has very good numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley.
Only 21% of Massachusetts voters have a favorable opinion of Congressional Republicans... but at the same time only 33% view Congressional Democrats favorably.
Among voters who have a negative take on both parties, who account for more than 20% of the electorate, Brown leads 74-21.
Brown's favorability spread is a remarkable +32, at 57/25. For some perspective on how good those numbers are, Bob McDonnell in Virginia was at a +20 spread with his state voters in the Public Policy Polling's final survey there before going on to a 17 point victory.
Coakley can certainly still win this race, perhaps even by a comfortable margin. Here's what she needs to do, especially if she makes this race about Ted Kennedy's legacy.
Brown is surprisingly popular, but given his short time on the statewide political stage in Massachusetts, we cannot forget that the overall GOP brand is terrible with Massachusetts voters.
Public Policy Polling indicates that there is little doubt that Republicans and GOP leaning independents are going to come out and vote for Scott Brown.
As we approach the final ten days of this senate race in Massachusetts is well past the stage where Democrats can take it for granted that will happen.
With polls tightening in the special election, former president Bill Clinton says he will campaign for Democratic nominee Martha Coakley. Clinton will be in Boston with Democrat Senator John Kerry, on Friday.
The Americano / Agencies
This election, from what I'm hearing, reminds me of the O'Brien-Romney matchup for governor back in like 2002 or whenever it was.
Another article on the race in the Herald today, gives more info on the latest polling info. Kind of long to post it all.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100114brown-out_poll_shows_scott_brown_trumping_martha_coakley/srvc=home&position=0
Quote from: Caliga on January 15, 2010, 09:00:39 AM
This election, from what I'm hearing, reminds me of the O'Brien-Romney matchup for governor back in like 2002 or whenever it was.
Yeah, it does.
Female politicians in Mass. really have a rough time. Remember Jane "Swift"?
Kind of an over all summary of what I'm seeing/hearing reported locally on the radio, tv, newspapers.
Quote
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/coakley-suffers-setbacks-final-week-senate-campaign/
A late surge by Republican Scott Brown has stripped away the sense of inevitability his Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, once had in the race for U.S. senator in Massachusetts.
Polls show the race is now a dead heat, and the most recent survey has Brown leading by 4 points. The Republican state senator has all the momentum -- he's reportedly raising money at a rate of $1 million a day -- and there's no shortage of criticism in political circles for the way Coakley and her allies have run her campaign.
Just one month ago, Coakley, the state's attorney general, was considered a shoo-in to claim the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
"Who could have foreseen this a month ago? ... This is absolutely amazing," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "(Coakley's) problem is they've got to motivate Democrats."
Coakley's campaign has been plagued by missteps, big and small, that may have given Brown an opening.
related links
*
Brown Takes Lead Over Coakley in Massachusetts Race, Poll Shows
*
Brown Reportedly Raising $1 Million Per Day in Senate Race
She's been broadly criticized for not being aggressive enough, particularly when Brown's campaign put up a brazen ad late last month comparing his campaign for a Democratic seat to John F. Kennedy's campaign nearly 60 years ago for what was then a Republican seat.
Asked if her campaign was going too soft, Coakley may have made another blunder.
"As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?'' she told The Boston Globe, in what appeared to be a reference to Brown's campaigning style.
Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, a figure of considerable stature in baseball-mad New England, picked up on that line and blasted Coakley as an elitist who wasn't trying hard enough to win the seat.
"She's apparently been trying to win the title of Worst Political Campaign Ever, and she might have just clinched it with her little dig at Scott Brown over Fenway Park," Schilling wrote on his blog.
The Democratic Party's heavy hitters, meanwhile, have kicked into overdrive, with top senators appealing to supporters for donations and former President Bill Clinton joining up with Massachusetts' senior senator, John Kerry, for a Friday afternoon rally.
Democrats warn that a Brown win could torpedo health care reform and other Obama administration initiatives, since he would break the Democrats' 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. "This is our wake-up call," Kerry said in a recent fundraising e-mail.
"Martha's vote is critical to getting health care and the rest of President Obama's agenda passed," Kerry wrote.
But Murphy's law seems to have prevailed over the past week.
-- A Coakley supporter knocked over a reporter from the Weekly Standard in full view of the cameras outside a Washington fundraiser Tuesday. Coakley said she didn't see it, but a photograph of the incident appeared to show her looking in the direction of the reporter when he fell. Her supporter later apologized.
-- Coakley was quoted at that fundraiser saying a loss in Massachusetts would be "hell" for Democrats in the 2010 elections. She denied she said it, but observers in the room confirmed that she had.
-- Coakley's campaign even misspelled Massachusetts in one of her ads, an error quickly pointed out by Republicans.
It's not clear whether President Obama will make a trip to Massachusetts to campaign before Tuesday's election; the White House insists nothing is planned. But the president did come to Coakley's aid by cutting an online video for her, calling on supporters to put on their "walking shoes" and bring out people to vote.
"In Washington, I'm fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care," Obama said. "I'm fighting for financial reforms to stop Wall Street from playing havoc with our economy. I'm fighting to create a new, clean energy economy.
"And it's clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United States Senate."
I called my mother to make sure that she votes.
:lmfao:
QuoteIn a recent debate, asked about her lack of foreign policy experience, the first credential Coakley offered in response was that "I have a sister who lives overseas, and she's been in England and now lives in the Middle East."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/10/27/martha-coakleys-sister-can-see-middle-east-her-house
Come on Republicans, KILL THE BILL! :showoff:
Another poll out with Brown up 3%
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0110/Poll_Brown_48_Coakley_45.html
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2010, 02:53:51 AM
:lmfao:
I don't get the joke. She's a Senator. What was Palin's?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 16, 2010, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2010, 02:53:51 AM
:lmfao:
I don't get the joke. She's a Senator. What was Palin's?
If you click the link Tim provided, they are making fun of her with comparisons to Palin.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 16, 2010, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2010, 02:53:51 AM
:lmfao:
I don't get the joke. She's a Senator. What was Palin's?
It's funny because it's just as bad as Palin's.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2010, 12:08:52 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 16, 2010, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 16, 2010, 02:53:51 AM
:lmfao:
I don't get the joke. She's a Senator. What was Palin's?
It's funny because it's just as bad as Palin's.
I don't think so. Palin is a woman who apparently quit being governor because she didn't want to be sent overseas.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2010, 12:48:56 AM
I don't think so. Palin is a woman who apparently quit being governor because she didn't want to be sent overseas.
She was already watching Russia; what more did you want from her?!
Quote from: garbon on January 17, 2010, 12:53:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2010, 12:48:56 AM
I don't think so. Palin is a woman who apparently quit being governor because she didn't want to be sent overseas.
She was already watching Russia; what more did you want from her?!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fz.about.com%2Fd%2Fpoliticalhumor%2F1%2F0%2FJ%2FL%2F2%2Fputin-palin.jpg&hash=101af00c445a302c62b67c53ce0a77bbafdf2a49)
I can feel his eyes on me!
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2010, 01:02:42 AM
I can feel his eyes on me!
Don't worry, I doubt he's checking you out.
You know you wanna.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Freslib%2F200908%2Fr411975_1947846.jpg&hash=8a22859855c34d47ad27ec40ee9951d674ba60e3)
Does Garbon have tundra fever?
Quote from: katmai on January 17, 2010, 01:35:46 AM
Don't be jealous.
:secret:
I've already had your man; he wasn't man enough for me.
It's time like these I really miss Count. If Brown actually won his reaction would be so entertaining. :D
Stay classy Martha, stay classy
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheplumline.whorunsgov.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F01%2Frapemailer1.JPG&hash=4f019d8e2d76ec1a25d16df6ad8bdf19f0fc021c)
Scott Brown supports unqualified baby murder. He deserves whatever he gets.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2010, 12:08:52 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 16, 2010, 08:59:42 PM
I don't get the joke. She's a Senator. What was Palin's?
It's funny because it's just as bad as Palin's.
What's Brown's foreign policy experience? What's most senators?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 17, 2010, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2010, 12:08:52 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 16, 2010, 08:59:42 PM
I don't get the joke. She's a Senator. What was Palin's?
It's funny because it's just as bad as Palin's.
What's Brown's foreign policy experience? What's most senators?
Didn't think I'd have to clarify this, but it's the quality of the answer that I'm laughing at. I know most senate candidates are going to have little foreign policy experience, but any competent candidate should be able to offer a better answer than that.
Martha's gone superbitch on Brownie's ass. Class act.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 17, 2010, 11:24:08 AM
Martha's gone superbitch on Brownie's ass. Class act.
I liked her "slam" on Schilling. All he has to do is raise the bloody sock banner and waves of drunken racist massholes will flock to him.
<masshole accent> WICKED AWESOME. LET'S GO TO DUNKIN' DOUGHNUTS! </masshole accent>
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2010, 10:45:05 AM
Didn't think I'd have to clarify this, but it's the quality of the answer that I'm laughing at. I know most senate candidates are going to have little foreign policy experience, but any competent candidate should be able to offer a better answer than that.
So what would you say?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 17, 2010, 11:45:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2010, 10:45:05 AM
Didn't think I'd have to clarify this, but it's the quality of the answer that I'm laughing at. I know most senate candidates are going to have little foreign policy experience, but any competent candidate should be able to offer a better answer than that.
So what would you say?
I don't know her life story, but surely she and her DNC advisors can come up with some BS that's way better than that. Or how about the truth? I'm sure Brown has as little experience as she has so it's not like it's a disadvantage.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2010, 11:51:24 AM
I don't know her life story, but surely she and her DNC advisors can come up with some BS that's way better than that. Or how about the truth? I'm sure Brown has as little experience as she has so it's not like it's a disadvantage.
I think you're a wee bit off-piste here. The link you have says the 'first credential' she offered was her sister lives abroad (she goes on in the clip to say that she's travelled extensively, because she's interested, but that she's AG so it's not something she deals with professionally). It's the first credential but the clip, by the look of it stops before she gives her full answer. Before we judge how bad her answer it it only seems fair to watch the whole thing. If that clip is her whole answer then it's poor.
I think in terms of Coakley you'd be better off going at her cold/Kim Driscoll comment and her failure to campaign than what looks to me like a rather over-edited attack.
Attleboro is the town right across the border to me so seeing this quite shocking to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011601323_2.html?sid=ST2010011702095
QuoteCampaign workers reaching voters at home say the feeling runs even deeper. Norm Fay joined the legion known as the Brown Brigade after seeing every incumbent in his town, Attleboro, defeated in the Dec. 8 primary.
So is this Brown guy the one who was a male model?
Yup. I think Fate linked it in an earlier page.
Anyways, new poll out by PPP showing Brown up 51%-46%.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/PPP_Brown_up_5.html
Also, Coakley's stocks on Intrade are plummeting.
http://www.intrade.com/
Tim is enjoying this...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2010, 10:00:53 PM
Attleboro is the town right across the border to me so seeing this quite shocking to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011601323_2.html?sid=ST2010011702095
QuoteCampaign workers reaching voters at home say the feeling runs even deeper. Norm Fay joined the legion known as the Brown Brigade after seeing every incumbent in his town, Attleboro, defeated in the Dec. 8 primary.
Maybe they can call themselves Brownshirts.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2010, 01:51:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 17, 2010, 10:00:53 PM
Attleboro is the town right across the border to me so seeing this quite shocking to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011601323_2.html?sid=ST2010011702095
QuoteCampaign workers reaching voters at home say the feeling runs even deeper. Norm Fay joined the legion known as the Brown Brigade after seeing every incumbent in his town, Attleboro, defeated in the Dec. 8 primary.
Maybe they can call themselves Brownshirts.
:D Nice.
EDIT: What? :yeahright:
I'm just watching all this with amazement now, for the last week. I would have never thought a Repub would be so close to Coakley or any known name Democrat candidate, and until a week ago I would have said it's still Coakley's seat to win. But now I think the clear advantage is Brown's, though still too close to call. I'll be watching the Old North Church lanterns, one if a win by Brown, two if a win by Coakley. ;)
Barack steps in:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.boston.com%2Fresize%2Fbonzai-fba%2FGlobe_Photo%2F2010%2F01%2F17%2F1263786748_0908%2F539w.jpg&hash=04227aa006eab9b0f580932d68b05c38f7a8c995)
QuotePresident Obama, putting his political capital on the line, swept into town yesterday to bolster Martha Coakley's campaign in the final days of an extraordinarily and unexpectedly tight US Senate race, saying that a Democratic victory tomorrow is vital to moving his agenda forward.
"Understand what's at stake here, Massachusetts. It's whether we're going forward or going backwards,'' Obama told a capacity crowd of 1,500 Coakley supporters at a Northeastern University gymnasium. "I can't do it alone. I need leaders like Martha by my side so we can kick it into high gear, so we can finish what we've started.''
The stakes for Obama are significant, as he tries to preserve Edward M. Kennedy's long-held Senate seat for Democrats and deflect the sudden and unexpectedly strong candidacy of state Senator Scott Brown, who would become the 41st Republican in the US Senate and give the party the filibuster power it needs to derail the president's health care over haul.
On a day when the race seemed to grow even more politically charged and vitriolic, Brown responded with a rally of his own at Mechanics Hall in Worcester, which drew nearly 2,000 people. The candidate, until recently a relative unknown, has been drawing increasingly large crowds in this overwhelming Democratic state, with recent polls showing him in a dead heat with Coakley or slightly ahead.
The Worcester event, coined "The People's Rally,'' was headlined by a cast of New England celebrities with working-man personas - former Red Sox ace Curt Schilling; Doug Flutie, the former Boston College and NFL quarterback; comedian Lenny Clarke; and John Ratzenberger (Cliff from "Cheers'') - as Brown sought to cast himself as a regular guy looking to send a message to Washington.
"The voters are doing their own thinking, and the machine politicians don't quite know how to react,'' Brown told the crowd. "This Senate seat does not belong to one person, or [one] party. It belongs to you.''
Both campaigns said they had overflow crowds. Brown's campaign estimated that 500 people watched a video feed at a nearby hotel ballroom; the Coakley campaign said that as many as 2,500 watched the Obama speech on a live feed across the street.
The Republican - who has made much of the fact that he owns a pickup truck with 200,000 miles on it - rallied the crowd with one of the frequent refrains of his campaign: "I'm Scott Brown, I'm from Wrentham, I drive a truck, and I'm asking for your vote.''
Obama, in a reference to that Brown campaign line, told the crowd at the Boston rally: "You've got to look under the hood.''
During his 25-minute speech, Obama criticized Brown's record, saying that the state senator has voted with Republicans 96 percent of the time and that it would be "hard to suggest'' he would be independent from the Republican agenda.Continued...
Obama also cast the Massachusetts election in stark terms regarding the future of the Democratic agenda, including the health care reform plan, which Coakley supports and Brown does not.
"Martha's opponent already is walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans,'' Obama said, criticizing Brown for opposing his recently proposed tax on Wall Street. "She's got your back, her opponent's got Wall Street's back. Bankers don't need another vote in the United States Senate. They've got plenty.''
Democrats believe Obama, a dynamic orator who easily captured this blue state in last year's presidential race, can breathe life into a Coakley campaign that until recently lacked any sense of urgency. Still, it's unclear how much of a boost he can give her or - with unreliable polls and an uncertain turnout in this midwinter race - exactly how much she needs.
Obama's decision to stump for Coakley yesterday comes with great political risk, after he saw his efforts for gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey last November end with Democratic losses, which were cast as a commentary on his young presidency.
The prospects of another Democratic loss - and such an unanticipated one at that - have national Republicans giddy.
Karl Rove yesterday wrote on his Twitter account, "Want to help Scott Brown but don't live in MA'' and linked to Brown's website.
"This has electrified the country,'' Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday morning on Fox News Sunday. ". . . Regardless of the outcome Tuesday, we know that in the most liberal state in America you're going to have a close election for the United States Senate because people in Massachusetts don't want this health care bill to pass.''
Earlier in the day, Brown campaigned in western and central Massachusetts, visiting Holyoke and West Springfield and greeting skiers on a soldout day at Wachusett Mountain, where he posed for pictures and signed lift tickets and snowboards. He inked many of them with "Scott #41'' - the vote he would represent in the Senate.
In Worcester, Brown's supporters on stage and in the crowd said they could sense victory was near. Schilling, Flutie, and others likened the atmosphere to the locker room of a championship team on the morning before a decisive victory.
Brown's daughters also appeared on stage. "If there's anything I know, it's that an underdog can accomplish great things,'' said Ayla Brown, a former "American Idol'' semifinalist and member of the Boston College women's basketball team, which earlier in the day had defeated a nationally ranked Georgia Tech squad.
Coakley entered the special election with a huge advantage: Registered Democrats in Massachusetts outnumber Republicans three-to-one, and the GOP hasn't won a US Senate seat here since 1972.
But Brown, who swept yesterday through Central Massachusetts, has tapped into an angry electorate that has been vocal at his events. Coakley supporters in Hyannis and Needham reported finding her campaign signs stolen or burned.
The president's speech was also briefly interrupted by a shout of "Abortion! Abortion! Innocent Blood!'' Two men and a young boy were escorted out of the room by police as the crowd tried to drown them out with chants of "Coakley! Coakley!''
Coakley aides said the men were from California; a Boston Police spokesman did not have names for the men and did not believe anyone was arrested. There were no indications that the men had ties to Brown's campaign, although abortion has been an increasingly charged issue in the campaign.
A series of Massachusetts elected officials spoke to the crowd before Obama took the stage. Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the widow of the late senator, whose death opened up the seat Brown and Coakley are vying for, also spoke.
"As Teddy would say, Jan. 19 is the date, Massachusetts is the state, and Martha Coakley is our candidate,'' Kennedy told the crowd.
Several speakers, including Coakley, acknowledged the struggles that Massachusetts voters are facing. "People deserve to be angry,'' Coakley said, "but we can't let that anger get in the way of remembering where it came from.''
Coakley yesterday hopped from a Dorchester church to a Brockton diner to a bar in Hyannis, asking for both prayers and votes.
She began the day at Charles Street AME, where about 70 congregants came to hold a prayer service for Haiti. Coakley sat near the front next to Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino.
"They don't want Barack to be a president who leads this country,'' Menino said, to calls from the crowd of "Say it, mayor, say it.'' "They want him to be a president who fails. We're not going to let that happen. . . . We lose this one, we lose the opportunity for Barack Obama and the change agenda to move forward.''
It's wrong to make fun of people who had brain cancer, Vicky. :(
A friend of mine is a Republican who thinks Reagan was an Ultra Liberal. She tells me that Brown signs are so hard to come by that his supporters steal each them from one another. She put one up in her front yard and within hours it was gone.
Bit later she saw one in a neighbor's hard that looked just like her missing sign and took that one. A chain of thievery marks this election.
538 calls Brown a 3:1 favorite! :showoff:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/538-model-posits-brown-as-31-favorite.html
Hohoho. Healthscare is dead. Heil Brown! :nelson:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 18, 2010, 05:14:17 PM
A friend of mine is a Republican who thinks Reagan was an Ultra Liberal. She tells me that Brown signs are so hard to come by that his supporters steal each them from one another. She put one up in her front yard and within hours it was gone.
Bit later she saw one in a neighbor's hard that looked just like her missing sign and took that one. A chain of thievery marks this election.
Well they are Republicans.
A 17 point lead for Brown in Peabody! :o
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6112236.shtml
Quote
The outlook of the race, however, looks increasingly shaky for Democrats. According to polling data released today from Suffolk University, Brown holds double-digit leads over Coakley in three Massachusetts communities considered bellwethers. The communities of Gardner, Fitchburg and Peabody are considered bellwethers because in the Nov. 2006 Senate race, the results in each community nearly matched statewide results. Also, party registration in those cities is similar to statewide registration.
In Gardner, Brown leads Coakley by 15 points, 55 percent to 40 percent. In Fitchburg, Brown has a 14-point lead at 55 percent to 41 percent, and in Peabody, voters give Brown a 17-point lead at 57 percent to 40 percent.
Would a Brown victory spell the end of the Obama Administration as a force for Hope and Change? Or would Obama's election fit the bill for that?
A vote against this dumbass would be a vote against Obama. The Democrats didn't take this very seriously.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 18, 2010, 08:40:49 PM
A vote against this dumbass would be a vote against Obama. The Democrats didn't take this very seriously.
I have to be honest, I'd consider voting for Brown.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 18, 2010, 08:40:49 PM
A vote against this dumbass would be a vote against Obama. The Democrats didn't take this very seriously.
Seriously Wags, reading polls like that I feel like I've fallen into an alternate universe. Does it really feel like Brown's momentum is that strong?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2010, 08:48:00 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 18, 2010, 08:40:49 PM
A vote against this dumbass would be a vote against Obama. The Democrats didn't take this very seriously.
Seriously Wags, reading polls like that I feel like I've fallen into an alternate universe. Does it really feel like Brown's momentum is that strong?
Like I said, the Dems didn't take this seriously from the start. They fucked themselves over by changing the law that they changed a few years back to appoint an interim Senator.
They fucked themselves over by acting as though the race was won before Kennedy was cold.
Etc. etc.
I think it would be tragic is Brown wins, given the implications for the healthcare reform. I'm starting to think that our country is no longer capable of doing anything on a large scale except maintain the inertia to the bitter end.
Quote from: Neil on January 18, 2010, 08:34:09 PM
Would a Brown victory spell the end of the Obama Administration as a force for Hope and Change? Or would Obama's election fit the bill for that?
A Brown win would derail the health scare bill, that monstrosity of inside deals, bribes, Union favors, big business favors, massive bribes to politicians to vote for the pig. And that's part of the reasons why even Massachusetts voters are giving Brown a lot of favor. In that, if this health bill nastiness is derailed, maybe it would actually do the Dems a favor. It's like they're doing anything to push that beast over the finish line, even though many Dems now must realize the folly of it and how they've gotten it to where it is now. So it's like they can't stop it now, but an outside reason which stops it would do them a favor.
Quote from: Caliga on January 15, 2010, 08:15:24 AM
I'm going to laugh my ass off if "Ted Kennedy's" seat goes to the GOP in the very first election following his death. :lol:
Although I'd enjoy it for other reasons, I'd love to see Robert Byrd's reaction if Brown wins. "Ohhhhhhhh Ted. Mah dear friend Ted. Ohhhhhhhhhhhh Ted, Ted, Ted..." :D
Ted should have stepped down when he realized he was gonna die within a few months.
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2010, 09:05:29 PM
I think it would be tragic is Brown wins, given the implications for the healthcare reform. I'm starting to think that our country is no longer capable of doing anything on a large scale except maintain the inertia to the bitter end.
I agree, but if Brown does win, and that does derail health care, what a fitting legacy for Ted Kennedy. The health care reform he sought all those years was in sight of passing, but ultimately failed because he was too much of a selfish prick to step away from power.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 18, 2010, 09:26:30 PM
I agree, but if Brown does win, and that does derail health care, what a fitting legacy for Ted Kennedy. The health care reform he sought all those years was in sight of passing, but ultimately failed because he was too much of a selfish prick to step away from power.
I never thought about it like that, but that puts a smile on my face.
It snowed there Monday right? Was it enough to effect turnout? I'd have to think that would favor Brown since his followers are more enthusiastic.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 18, 2010, 09:26:30 PM
I agree, but if Brown does win, and that does derail health care, what a fitting legacy for Ted Kennedy. The health care reform he sought all those years was in sight of passing, but ultimately failed because he was too much of a selfish prick to step away from power.
What difference would it have made when he stepped down?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2010, 10:22:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 18, 2010, 09:26:30 PM
I agree, but if Brown does win, and that does derail health care, what a fitting legacy for Ted Kennedy. The health care reform he sought all those years was in sight of passing, but ultimately failed because he was too much of a selfish prick to step away from power.
What difference would it have made when he stepped down?
It is hard to imagine another scenario in the past 4 years that a decent democratic candidate would lose his old seat. The fact that Coakley is even in the senate right now involved some political dealings that haven't been well received and were only due to Kennedy dying in office.
Coakley isn't in the Senate right now. Paul Kirk is the seat's caretaker until the special election.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2010, 10:22:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 18, 2010, 09:26:30 PM
I agree, but if Brown does win, and that does derail health care, what a fitting legacy for Ted Kennedy. The health care reform he sought all those years was in sight of passing, but ultimately failed because he was too much of a selfish prick to step away from power.
What difference would it have made when he stepped down?
The earlier he stepped down, the earlier the special election would have been held. Early enough and there wouldn't have been enough anger to harness and Coakley would have won big.
I hadn't heard of this case before today. Disgusting. :mad:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/17/straining-to-defend-martha-coa?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
QuoteCommenting on Martha Coakley's role in the Gerald Amirault case, M. LeBlanc at Bitch, Ph.D. writes:
So, what's the moral status of advocating that someone who is likely innocent remain in prison? It's a tough question. As far as I known, it's something that's routinely done by prosecutors everywhere...
I don't have a major problem with prosecutors who lobby for people to serve more time in prison, whether it's at the indictment, sentencing, or parole stage. My main concern is with systems that are overly deferential to prosecutors, that disadvantage defendants, and that make it extremely difficult for convicts to make the case for their own parole. I do think the criminal justice world would be a lot more just if more prosecutors declined to prosecute more often. Particularly in high-profile or embattled cases, where it seems that all evidence points to innocence, but the prosecutors insist on, for example, re-trying a case after a trial has been thrown out years after the fact by a judge. You see this all the time: prosecutors' stubborn insistence that they've got the right guy in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Nevertheless, being a prosecutor who is stalwart when presented with evidence of innocence or prosecutorial misconduct is so common as to be banal. Which is why I think her lobbying for Amirault's continued incarceration isn't, in itself, enough to make her a morally suspect choice for senator...
A lot of the criticism of Coakley's involvement in the Amirault case seems to center on the fact that she was clearly stepping up the pressure on the governor for her own political gain. Being seen as a law-and-order sort is almost uniformly a political advantage, no matter where you hold office. Hardly anyone ever fails to be elected because they were too hard on criminals. Take, for example, Joe Arpaio (extremely popular!) vs. Michael Dukakis (Willie Horton!). But it's not really enough to blame politicians for exploiting this tendency of Americans to thirst for more and more justice-blood. And I'm not particularly moved by allegations that people are behaving in politicized ways. Justice is political, and the more we recognize and appreciate that, the better we can be honest with ourselves as a society and government about how we want to proceed.
I'm floored by this reaction. A leftist could make a respectable argument that even though Coakley was grievously out of bounds in the Amirault case the need for her vote on health care reform, filibuster prevention, and other issues is more important than the troubling decisions she made as a prosecutor. A leftist could also plausibly argue that when it comes to actually making criminal justice policy as a senator, Coakley isn't likely to be any worse than her opponent, and therefore she deserves support because she's more progressive on everything else.
But LeBlanc isn't arguing either of those positions. She's arguing something far more repugnant: She's conceding that the Amirault case was a travesty of justice, and that Coakley was wrong for her extraordinary efforts to keep Gerald Amiralut in prison. But she's then arguing that Coakley deserves a pass specifically for her actions in the Amirault case, anyway, because all prosecutors do it, and because it's what Coakley had to do to accumulate political power and move on to higher office.
That is one hellaciously disturbing statement of values. LeBlanc is either arguing that she believes the accumulation of power and advancement of one's career is more important than justice—more important than ensuring that innocent people don't rot behind bars—or that she's willing to give a pass to politicians who do.
Actually, not just a pass, but a promotion.
I'm also not convinced LeBlanc's assumptions about the political pressures Coakley faced in the Amirault case are accurate. The parole board voted 5-0 to free Gerald Amirault in 1999. That came three years after Dorothy Rabinowtiz won her Pulitzer Prize for commentary for her columns exposing the case against the Amiraults and other sex abuse injustices. Recovered memory therapy; the leading, repeated, and persistent questioning of children; and the various other tactics prosecutors used in the sex abuse hysteria cases of the 1980s and early 1990s had been exposed and debunked. Coakley had plenty of political cover to do the right thing in this case.
LeBlanc is right that generally speaking, prosecutors fight like hell to protect convictions, even when there's overwhelming evidence of innocence. But not all of them do. There are plenty of cases where prosecutors have dropped charges and freed the wrongly convicted. Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins is actively seeking out innocence cases, and he's doing it in a jurisdiction that's a hell of a lot more conservative than Middlesex, Massachusetts. Perhaps it's too much to expect Coakley to have Watkins' moral courage. But then, she isn't being criticized for not going as far as someone like Watkins. She's being criticized for going well above and beyond the call of duty the other way, including fighting outside the courtroom by orchestrating a PR campaign to persuade then-Gov. Jane Swift to keep Amirault in prison. Coakley wasn't bowing to political pressure, she was creating it.
Broadly speaking, LeBlanc's also right that "hardly anyone ever fails to be elected becasue they were too hard on criminals." But I don't know of a single incident in which a prosecutor suffered bad publicity or was attacked politically for failing to fight the release of an innocent person. "Tough on crime" positions on parole, sentencing, the death penalty, and so on are policy positions on which reasonable people can disagree. Obstinacy in the face of overwhelming evidence of someone's innocence is a moral failing, regardless of motivation.
Moreover, Coakley's also being criticized for failing to bring charges against a man who sexually assaulted his young niece with a curling iron. Coakley's successor put him away for two life terms. Why would Coakley—so aware of the political pressure to be tough on crime, so protective of her own ambition for higher office, and who carefully cultivated an image for herself as a defender of children—not throw the book at a man accused of raping a toddler with a curling iron? I'm just guessing here, but it may have something to do with the fact that Keith Winfield was also a police officer. That suggests a blind allegiance to law enforcement that we should find troubling in a U.S. Senator who will be making and voting on criminal justice policy.
There's a broader point here, too. Even the left—even the far left—seems to find it difficult to hold bad prosecutors accountable, at least when they happen to be Democrats. So long as prosecutors are rewarded for aggressiveness and never punished when they overstep, we'll continue to see the very sort of behavior LeBlanc claims to find troubling.
It's worth noting that the person who actually convicted the Amiraults was Coakley's predecessor in the Middlesex County DA's office, Scott Harshbarger. How was Harshbarger punished for his mistakes? For starters, like Coakley, he went on to become Massachusetts Attorney General. In 1998, well after the injustice in the Amirault case was well known both in and out of Massachusetts, he was the Democratic nominee for governor. He was later hired to head up the liberal interest group Common Cause. Of course, there's also Janet Reno, who went on to become U.S. attorney general, despite her own history of dubious sex abuse convictions.
I'm glad LeBlanc believes "the criminal justice world would be a lot more just if more prosecutors declined to prosecute more often," and that she's troubled by "prosecutors' stubborn insistence that they've got the right guy in the face of overwhelming evidence." But frankly, she's part of the problem. If even a leftist blogger like LeBlanc is unwilling to hold overly aggressive prosecutors accountable, is willing to overlook a grave injustices so long as they're committed out of political ambition, and can later support the same bad actors' election to higher office, how does she expect the criminal justice system's flawed incentive structure to change?
Quote from: Fate on January 18, 2010, 11:06:18 PM
Coakley isn't in the Senate right now. Paul Kirk is the seat's caretaker until the special election.
I stand corrected.
Patrick Kennedy doesn't even know Martha's name. :lol:
He really must be the most stupid representative in America.
http://www.projo.com/news/efitzpatrick/edward_fitzpatrick_19_web_01-19-10_2AH5JQT_v18.2a12fe4.html
Reason magazine? C'mon Tim. You are better then that.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 01:17:12 AM
Reason magazine? C'mon Tim. You are better then that.
Address the argument not the source.
That's not the first place I'd heard about this case. I found a ton of stuff on it today and her actions were inexcusable.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2010, 01:26:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 01:17:12 AM
Reason magazine? C'mon Tim. You are better then that.
Address the argument not the source.
That's not the first place I'd heard about this case. I found a ton of stuff on it today and her actions were inexcusable.
The one thing I have learned from Republicans is that you always attack the source first. If the Randians at Reason magazine are against something then it probably has something going for it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2010, 11:33:52 PM
I hadn't heard of this case before today.
Seriously? The Amirault case got fairly frequent (albeit generally low-level) coverage for years up there.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 06:30:35 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2010, 11:33:52 PM
I hadn't heard of this case before today.
Seriously? The Amirault case got fairly frequent (albeit generally low-level) coverage for years up there.
The primitive legal practices of the savage tribesmen of Massachusetts were mostly ignored in the enlightened state of Rhode Island. :bowler:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2010, 09:54:03 PM
It snowed there Monday right? Was it enough to effect turnout? I'd have to think that would favor Brown since his followers are more enthusiastic.
The roads were cleared off by late afternoon. Don't know about now with the freezing rain.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2010, 07:13:59 AM
The primitive legal practices of the savage tribesmen of Massachusetts were mostly ignored in the enlightened state of Rhode Island. :bowler:
Oh yeah... I guess you tended to watch Providence news rather than Boston news. :blush:
Time says no one is doing any exit polls. :mad:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/19/massachusetts-senate-race-election-day/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2010, 08:48:00 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 18, 2010, 08:40:49 PM
A vote against this dumbass would be a vote against Obama. The Democrats didn't take this very seriously.
Seriously Wags, reading polls like that I feel like I've fallen into an alternate universe. Does it really feel like Brown's momentum is that strong?
Yes, there's a lot of energy and enthusiasm for Brown. Still a close race but the energy is there for Brown that you're seeing.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 06:30:35 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2010, 11:33:52 PM
I hadn't heard of this case before today.
Seriously? The Amirault case got fairly frequent (albeit generally low-level) coverage for years up there.
Yep, pretty strong coverage, and a lot of worry over how it was handled and that it took so long to resolve the issues around it. Coakley got some flack over it for her part, when she was involved later on, but I haven't seen any negative campaign ads over it.
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2010, 09:05:29 PM
I think it would be tragic is Brown wins, given the implications for the healthcare reform. I'm starting to think that our country is no longer capable of doing anything on a large scale except maintain the inertia to the bitter end.
Why? The Democrats wouldn't be being hammered over this health care bill if it was popular. The President's done very little to make people think it isn't a load of pork, with back room deals with individual senators, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.
You can argue that's wrong, but it's not a sign of systemic failure because the Democrats had trouble selling a questionable bill of goods.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 11:57:13 AM
Why? The Democrats wouldn't be being hammered over this health care bill if it was popular. The President's done very little to make people think it isn't a load of pork, with back room deals with individual senators, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.
You can argue that's wrong, but it's not a sign of systemic failure because the Democrats had trouble selling a questionable bill of goods.
Health care reform is complex enough that it is almost impossible to make a good case for it on a cable news show, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sound bill.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 11:57:13 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2010, 09:05:29 PM
I think it would be tragic is Brown wins, given the implications for the healthcare reform. I'm starting to think that our country is no longer capable of doing anything on a large scale except maintain the inertia to the bitter end.
Why? The Democrats wouldn't be being hammered over this health care bill if it was popular. The President's done very little to make people think it isn't a load of pork, with back room deals with individual senators, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.
You can argue that's wrong, but it's not a sign of systemic failure because the Democrats had trouble selling a questionable bill of goods.
Agreed I much prefer the status quo. Scott Brown is the only thing standing between America and communism. VOTE BROWN!
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 12:50:41 PM
Health care reform is complex enough that it is almost impossible to make a good case for it on a cable news show, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sound bill.
Mmm. So in other words it's the fault of the masses for not studying the issue?
I dunno. The Obama administration has managed to be perceived by the left as selling out to big business and basically subsidizing insurance. It's managed to get the center uneasy with the expansion of government interference, and galvanize the right. It's also completely let its grass roots support system (which would have been a nice way to counteract the Tea Party movement) wither away.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 12:50:41 PM
Health care reform is complex enough that it is almost impossible to make a good case for it on a cable news show, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sound bill.
Maybe a better strategy then would be to do the reform in a series of smaller bills that are easier to understand on their own instead of one big huge one that just looks overwhelming.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2010, 01:39:34 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 12:50:41 PM
Health care reform is complex enough that it is almost impossible to make a good case for it on a cable news show, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sound bill.
Maybe a better strategy then would be to do the reform in a series of smaller bills that are easier to understand on their own instead of one big huge one that just looks overwhelming.
And require five 60 vote cloture motions on each of them? Are you kidding me? That's a gift bag to obstructionists.
Sounds like a great idea!
Quote from: Fate on January 19, 2010, 01:43:05 PM
And require five 60 vote cloture motions on each of them? Are you kidding me? That's a gift bag to obstructionists.
Sounds like a great idea!
There is certainly that, but it's much easier to obstruct an unpopular bill than a dozen popular ones.
MIM, you're forgetting about The Fate Rule. :blush:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2010, 01:39:34 PM
Maybe a better strategy then would be to do the reform in a series of smaller bills that are easier to understand on their own instead of one big huge one that just looks overwhelming.
Politically, maybe, but practically it would be a disastrous strategy. So many pieces of the healthcare reform must come together, or not at all. You can't have guaranteed issue without a mandate, for example.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 01:15:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 12:50:41 PM
Health care reform is complex enough that it is almost impossible to make a good case for it on a cable news show, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sound bill.
Mmm. So in other words it's the fault of the masses for not studying the issue?
I dunno. The Obama administration has managed to be perceived by the left as selling out to big business and basically subsidizing insurance. It's managed to get the center uneasy with the expansion of government interference, and galvanize the right. It's also completely let its grass roots support system (which would have been a nice way to counteract the Tea Party movement) wither away.
Yes. Lefties here in Mass. complain that Obama sold them out to Big Business. He and his DNC masters have managed to piss off everyone and have very little to show for it. Maybe the surprise invasion of Cuba will generate some support from everyone.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 19, 2010, 02:30:07 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 01:15:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 12:50:41 PM
Health care reform is complex enough that it is almost impossible to make a good case for it on a cable news show, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sound bill.
Mmm. So in other words it's the fault of the masses for not studying the issue?
I dunno. The Obama administration has managed to be perceived by the left as selling out to big business and basically subsidizing insurance. It's managed to get the center uneasy with the expansion of government interference, and galvanize the right. It's also completely let its grass roots support system (which would have been a nice way to counteract the Tea Party movement) wither away.
Yes. Lefties here in Mass. complain that Obama sold them out to Big Business. He and his DNC masters have managed to piss off everyone and have very little to show for it. Maybe the surprise invasion of Cuba will generate some support from everyone.
I tend to agree with you and Faelin here. The Obama admin has managed to annoy just about everyone it seems, doing business even more so than usual, after promising quite the opposite.
Part of me is laughing that the Dems are likely going to lose that seat.
I'd laugh harder if the cunt pulls it out so I can laugh at Tim. I'd so rub it in his face.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 02:12:36 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2010, 01:39:34 PM
Maybe a better strategy then would be to do the reform in a series of smaller bills that are easier to understand on their own instead of one big huge one that just looks overwhelming.
Politically, maybe, but practically it would be a disastrous strategy. So many pieces of the healthcare reform must come together, or not at all. You can't have guaranteed issue without a mandate, for example.
You're probably right. But I think most people don't want health care reform stopped, just want it done smaller at first, or quite differently. The Repubs and Bush admin did try some smaller changes but go nowhere as well.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2010, 01:26:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 01:17:12 AM
Reason magazine? C'mon Tim. You are better then that.
Address the argument not the source.
That's not the first place I'd heard about this case. I found a ton of stuff on it today and her actions were inexcusable.
There is no argument to address. The article just has one poster whining about another poster.
Quote from: KRonn on January 19, 2010, 03:09:30 PM
You're probably right. But I think most people don't want health care reform stopped, just want it done smaller at first, or quite differently. The Repubs and Bush admin did try some smaller changes but go nowhere as well.
The problem the Democrat leaders have is that they refuse to create a structure around which policies are arrayed, so people can see why provisions are necessary. They are doing their usual pork promises to each interest group, and adding the whole thing up as a "plan." As DG says, you cannot have a reform without an overhaul, because of the way insurance works. The Democratic leadership refused to just take a working, popular plan from, say, Britain, or France or Germany and change its colors, because then they couldn't cut special deals.
The existing system is so awful that Dems counted on people seeing any change as good. The problem is that it isn't awful for certain groups, though, and the visibility of those groups and the Big Lie of the "death panels" movement stopped them in their tracks. They don't have a good answer for either complaint because they don't have a real plan, just a bunch of promises that would be useless (or counterproductive) by themselves.
A decent point. "Importing" a plan from Germany or the Netherlands would come under fire for being Euro but at least it would have the benefit of a concrete track record that people could look at and make up their minds about. The uncertainty that the Senate plan will be any good--or even worse than what we have now--is maybe the biggest reason people are skeptical. If it were complicated but built on a model that is known, a lot of that might not be the case.
BTW--polls close when? 45 minutes?
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2010, 07:15:33 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 19, 2010, 03:09:30 PM
You're probably right. But I think most people don't want health care reform stopped, just want it done smaller at first, or quite differently. The Repubs and Bush admin did try some smaller changes but go nowhere as well.
The problem the Democrat leaders have is that they refuse to create a structure around which policies are arrayed, so people can see why provisions are necessary. They are doing their usual pork promises to each interest group, and adding the whole thing up as a "plan." As DG says, you cannot have a reform without an overhaul, because of the way insurance works. The Democratic leadership refused to just take a working, popular plan from, say, Britain, or France or Germany and change its colors, because then they couldn't cut special deals.
The existing system is so awful that Dems counted on people seeing any change as good. The problem is that it isn't awful for certain groups, though, and the visibility of those groups and the Big Lie of the "death panels" movement stopped them in their tracks. They don't have a good answer for either complaint because they don't have a real plan, just a bunch of promises that would be useless (or counterproductive) by themselves.
grumbler's solution is to import
european socialism. That'll go over like a lead balloon with freedom loving teabaggers. :lmfao:
As I expected, the turnout turned out to be much higher than expected. I figured that the news of Republicans being close to capturing the seat would motivate the Democrats to not let that happen, or at least I hope that's what the explanation is. From what I heard, Croakley doesn't sound like a deserving candidate, but if there was ever a time to look past the individual, this should be it.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
As I expected, the turnout turned out to be much higher than expected. I figured that the news of Republicans being close to capturing the seat would motivate the Democrats to not let that happen, or at least I hope that's what the explanation is. From what I heard, Croakley doesn't sound like a deserving candidate, but if there was ever a time to look past the individual, this should be it.
I disagree. That attitude ensures that we cotninue to get less than deserving candidates because there is no reason to put forth good ones.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 19, 2010, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
As I expected, the turnout turned out to be much higher than expected. I figured that the news of Republicans being close to capturing the seat would motivate the Democrats to not let that happen, or at least I hope that's what the explanation is. From what I heard, Croakley doesn't sound like a deserving candidate, but if there was ever a time to look past the individual, this should be it.
I disagree. That attitude ensures that we cotninue to get less than deserving candidates because there is no reason to put forth good ones.
Or we can wait around with our thumbs up our asses waiting for super candidates while congenial idiots take over the country.
Brown wins. 52% to 47%.
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2010, 07:15:33 PM
The problem the Democrat leaders have is that they refuse to create a structure around which policies are arrayed, so people can see why provisions are necessary. They are doing their usual pork promises to each interest group, and adding the whole thing up as a "plan." As DG says, you cannot have a reform without an overhaul, because of the way insurance works. The Democratic leadership refused to just take a working, popular plan from, say, Britain, or France or Germany and change its colors, because then they couldn't cut special deals.
The existing system is so awful that Dems counted on people seeing any change as good. The problem is that it isn't awful for certain groups, though, and the visibility of those groups and the Big Lie of the "death panels" movement stopped them in their tracks. They don't have a good answer for either complaint because they don't have a real plan, just a bunch of promises that would be useless (or counterproductive) by themselves.
I agree with this, a good example is the political maneuvering that Obama had to do to placate union leaders and State employees who were looking at the prospect of having their health care plans fall under the definition of "Cadillac health care plan."
I think most people agree health care needs overhauled; I'm extremely conservative and I feel this way. The problem with the most recent attempt at health care reform is it is, just like grumbler said, not any sort of systemic overhaul but instead taking a hammer and swinging at random aspects of the health care industry in a way designed to make certain interest groups happy while only pissing off the ones that the Democrats feel they won't be supported by in any case.
The #1 issue facing America's health care system is
cost, and we need a serious plan for addressing cost first, anything else will just lead to endless rounds of debate and further need for change. It really doesn't matter what type of health care system we get out of the current situation if the problem of rising costs isn't adequately addressed (and it isn't by Obama's legislation), as long as rising costs are unaddressed we are going to be forced back to the table and looking at a "health care overhaul" again and again and again.
In some ways we'd be in a good position if our political leadership wasn't so concerned with creating some crazy-assed patchwork quilt designed to appease the various interest groups. There are many working health care systems around the world, and since we have the opportunity to implement one essentially from the "ground up" we could look at systems like the ones in Europe or even Canada and implement them while avoiding the mistakes and problems of those systems (at least in theory--it's the classic example of a "late adopter" avoiding some of the developmental pit falls.")
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 08:59:48 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 19, 2010, 08:31:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
As I expected, the turnout turned out to be much higher than expected. I figured that the news of Republicans being close to capturing the seat would motivate the Democrats to not let that happen, or at least I hope that's what the explanation is. From what I heard, Croakley doesn't sound like a deserving candidate, but if there was ever a time to look past the individual, this should be it.
I disagree. That attitude ensures that we cotninue to get less than deserving candidates because there is no reason to put forth good ones.
Or we can wait around with our thumbs up our asses waiting for super candidates while congenial idiots take over the country.
That might happen anyway.
So long as people are OK with voting for the lesser of two evils or the one who isn't a total jackass we will see the parties not really put any effort into things.
I believe Mass. will benefit long term from this because the Democrats will no longer take the Commonwealth for granted as a lock. We've had GOP Governors, voted for Reagan, and now have a GOP senator. Maybe now both parties will make a real attempt to win the state. There is some benefit to being a battleground state.
It's a pipedream. But I occasionally like to dream.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 19, 2010, 10:13:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2010, 07:15:33 PM
The problem the Democrat leaders have is that they refuse to create a structure around which policies are arrayed, so people can see why provisions are necessary. They are doing their usual pork promises to each interest group, and adding the whole thing up as a "plan." As DG says, you cannot have a reform without an overhaul, because of the way insurance works. The Democratic leadership refused to just take a working, popular plan from, say, Britain, or France or Germany and change its colors, because then they couldn't cut special deals.
The existing system is so awful that Dems counted on people seeing any change as good. The problem is that it isn't awful for certain groups, though, and the visibility of those groups and the Big Lie of the "death panels" movement stopped them in their tracks. They don't have a good answer for either complaint because they don't have a real plan, just a bunch of promises that would be useless (or counterproductive) by themselves.
I agree with this, a good example is the political maneuvering that Obama had to do to placate union leaders and State employees who were looking at the prospect of having their health care plans fall under the definition of "Cadillac health care plan."
I think most people agree health care needs overhauled; I'm extremely conservative and I feel this way. The problem with the most recent attempt at health care reform is it is, just like grumbler said, not any sort of systemic overhaul but instead taking a hammer and swinging at random aspects of the health care industry in a way designed to make certain interest groups happy while only pissing off the ones that the Democrats feel they won't be supported by in any case.
The #1 issue facing America's health care system is cost, and we need a serious plan for addressing cost first, anything else will just lead to endless rounds of debate and further need for change. It really doesn't matter what type of health care system we get out of the current situation if the problem of rising costs isn't adequately addressed (and it isn't by Obama's legislation), as long as rising costs are unaddressed we are going to be forced back to the table and looking at a "health care overhaul" again and again and again.
In some ways we'd be in a good position if our political leadership wasn't so concerned with creating some crazy-assed patchwork quilt designed to appease the various interest groups. There are many working health care systems around the world, and since we have the opportunity to implement one essentially from the "ground up" we could look at systems like the ones in Europe or even Canada and implement them while avoiding the mistakes and problems of those systems (at least in theory--it's the classic example of a "late adopter" avoiding some of the developmental pit falls.")
As far as I'm concerned, health care should be treated just like any other commody; anybody should be able to buy as much as they can afford. If we actually went that route, we'd actually see major cuts in costs.right now, doctors are doing quite well by chargind $75 and up just for a simple office visit, because most people will pay $20-35 and their insurance or the government will pick up the rest. But if everybody just paid out of their own pocket, the doctors would have to lower their rates to a level that almost everyone can afford, because otherwise they'd lose all their patients.
CNN just said that a democratic senator (webb) released a statement saying it would only be fair to suspend health care votes until Brown is seated. Cowardly fuckers.
The funny/sad thing for the GOP now is, though, I bet Brown is now their #1 prospect for a Presidential run.
The funny/sad thing for the Democrats now is that they're probably stuck with Obama as their Presidential candidate in 2012.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 10:45:40 PM
The funny/sad thing for the Democrats now is that they're probably stuck with Obama as their Presidential candidate in 2012.
Oh, please, like this wouldn't happen with any other Democrat elected as president.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 11:04:47 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 10:45:40 PM
The funny/sad thing for the Democrats now is that they're probably stuck with Obama as their Presidential candidate in 2012.
Oh, please, like this wouldn't happen with any other Democrat elected as president.
Jimmy Carter faced a primary challange from within his own party in 1980 in the form of Ted Kennedy, and he was able to hold on to the nomination. Do you really think that Carter beats Kennedy in a primary race if Carter's not the incumbent? So of course it's not just about Obama. But he will fight off any primary challange (if there is one) in 2012, unless things are really, really bad. Scary bad.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 10:41:32 PM
CNN just said that a democratic senator (webb) released a statement saying it would only be fair to suspend health care votes until Brown is seated. Cowardly fuckers.
Democrats sure did their best to reap the least benefits with the most drawbacks out of their "supermajority". A lot of good those "moderates" did for them, they just created the illusion of Democratic majority, without giving Democrats the power.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 11:12:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 11:04:47 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 10:45:40 PM
The funny/sad thing for the Democrats now is that they're probably stuck with Obama as their Presidential candidate in 2012.
Oh, please, like this wouldn't happen with any other Democrat elected as president.
Jimmy Carter faced a primary challange from within his own party in 1980 in the form of Ted Kennedy, and he was able to hold on to the nomination. Do you really think that Carter beats Kennedy in a primary race if Carter's not the incumbent? So of course it's not just about Obama. But he will fight off any primary challange (if there is one) in 2012, unless things are really, really bad. Scary bad.
I don't think you got the point of my message. Obama is now under attack, and his approval ratings dropped. Do you think any Democrat in his place would fare differently right now? No matter what any president would do, the economy would still be bad, and of course it would be the fault of the president for the last year.
Right-wing nutjobs aren't going to concede the legitimacy of any Democratic president, and unfortunately right-wing nutjobs hold the biggest influence over the mood of the general public. Democrats may make temporary gains whenever the right-wingers discredit themselves, which happens frequently due to them subscribing to an intellectually bankrupt ideology, but after a while things bounce back to normal.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 10:41:32 PM
CNN just said that a democratic senator (webb) released a statement saying it would only be fair to suspend health care votes until Brown is seated. Cowardly fuckers.
:nelson:
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 10:41:32 PM
CNN just said that a democratic senator (webb) released a statement saying it would only be fair to suspend health care votes until Brown is seated. Cowardly fuckers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fquestionabletopic.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F04%2Fsuicide.jpg&hash=a39a64e791f269a97e9b8e89893b07c414057e5d)
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 11:26:07 PM
Right-wing nutjobs aren't going to concede the legitimacy of any Democratic president, and unfortunately right-wing nutjobs hold the biggest influence over the mood of the general public. Democrats may make temporary gains whenever the right-wingers discredit themselves, which happens frequently due to them subscribing to an intellectually bankrupt ideology, but after a while things bounce back to normal.
Hey, maybe the President shouldn't be talking about cutting the deficit and instead asking what happened to the trillions of dollars in tax cuts and war spending under Dubya. Maybe, if the "right-wingers discredit themselves" by subscribing to an "intellectually bankrupt ideology", you shouldn't make noises about bipartisanship and then seem like a tool when nobody wants to make huggy faces at you.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 11:26:07 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 11:12:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 11:04:47 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 10:45:40 PM
The funny/sad thing for the Democrats now is that they're probably stuck with Obama as their Presidential candidate in 2012.
Oh, please, like this wouldn't happen with any other Democrat elected as president.
Jimmy Carter faced a primary challange from within his own party in 1980 in the form of Ted Kennedy, and he was able to hold on to the nomination. Do you really think that Carter beats Kennedy in a primary race if Carter's not the incumbent? So of course it's not just about Obama. But he will fight off any primary challange (if there is one) in 2012, unless things are really, really bad. Scary bad.
I don't think you got the point of my message. Obama is now under attack, and his approval ratings dropped. Do you think any Democrat in his place would fare differently right now? No matter what any president would do, the economy would still be bad, and of course it would be the fault of the president for the last year.
My original post was basically a joke about the Democrats are being pretty much stuck with Obama as their Presidential candidate in 2012 whether or not they want him. While it was intended as a joke, it is true that he'll be their nominee barring a major calamity between now and then. I misunderstood your post and somehow got the impression that you were suggestiing that they aren't stuck with him, that a primary challange was likely to be successful. Clearly, that's not what you said. Sorry about that.
Tonight was a victory for the forces of freedom and justice. :showoff:
ObamaCare is DOA!
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2010, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 10:06:13 PM
Quote from: Weatherman on January 19, 2010, 09:56:45 PM
Brown wins. 52% to 47%.
America losses.
Your statement doesn't make any sense.
Meh, you wouldn't understand not being an American. Besides hasn't China purchased Alberta? As a Chinese shill I would expect you to root against the US.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 11:26:07 PM...which happens frequently due to them subscribing to an intellectually bankrupt ideology,
As opposed to the intellectually sound ideology of the left. :rolleyes:
Your naiveté is amusing and sad. :hug:
I like how Taxachusetts is the state that stops Obamacare from Bankrupting America.
Quote from: Viking on January 20, 2010, 05:06:18 AM
I like how Taxachusetts is the state that stops Obamacare from Bankrupting America.
-_- Taxes in Massachusetts are not as high as everyone says. They're probably about average in the US. I think taxes in California are much higher, for example. Then again that might not be true anymore since they started that MassHealth thing up there.
Quote from: Caliga on January 20, 2010, 06:14:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 20, 2010, 05:06:18 AM
I like how Taxachusetts is the state that stops Obamacare from Bankrupting America.
-_- Taxes in Massachusetts are not as high as everyone says. They're probably about average in the US. I think taxes in California are much higher, for example. Then again that might not be true anymore since they started that MassHealth thing up there.
Its gone up. But there are probably other states. Real estate taxes in Live Free or Die NH are through the roof for example, not getting into their toll booths every quarter miles.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2010, 01:09:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2010, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 10:06:13 PM
Quote from: Weatherman on January 19, 2010, 09:56:45 PM
Brown wins. 52% to 47%.
America losses.
Your statement doesn't make any sense.
Meh, you wouldn't understand not being an American. Besides hasn't China purchased Alberta? As a Chinese shill I would expect you to root against the US.
He's making fun of you because you misspelled loses.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 19, 2010, 10:43:52 PM
The funny/sad thing for the GOP now is, though, I bet Brown is now their #1 prospect for a Presidential run.
I hope not, it would be incredibly foolish to elect a Senator who has not even completed his first term to the presidency.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 20, 2010, 08:43:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 19, 2010, 10:43:52 PM
The funny/sad thing for the GOP now is, though, I bet Brown is now their #1 prospect for a Presidential run.
I hope not, it would be incredibly foolish to elect a Senator who has not even completed his first term to the presidency.
I agree.
...
<_<
Quote from: Savonarola on January 20, 2010, 08:43:03 AM
I hope not, it would be incredibly foolish to elect a Senator who has not even completed his first term to the presidency.
At least he would have had some experience in government unlike a Texas Governor.
Anyway glad to see a RINO take office. :showoff:
Quote from: Queequeg on January 19, 2010, 11:34:35 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 10:41:32 PM
CNN just said that a democratic senator (webb) released a statement saying it would only be fair to suspend health care votes until Brown is seated. Cowardly fuckers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fquestionabletopic.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F04%2Fsuicide.jpg&hash=a39a64e791f269a97e9b8e89893b07c414057e5d)
Your agony: delicious. tastes like Constantinople falling.
Good electoral map of the state and the shift in votes from 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/massachusetts-election-map.html?hp
Just...wow. What a disaster this year has been for liberals.
I wonder how soon the Languish Liberals will abandon Obama? It already seems to be happening elsewhere, but I suspect the Languish crowd is a bit more stubborn than most.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 11:15:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 19, 2010, 10:41:32 PM
CNN just said that a democratic senator (webb) released a statement saying it would only be fair to suspend health care votes until Brown is seated. Cowardly fuckers.
Democrats sure did their best to reap the least benefits with the most drawbacks out of their "supermajority". A lot of good those "moderates" did for them, they just created the illusion of Democratic majority, without giving Democrats the power.
The reason the Democrats were unable to exploit their incredible political power was because they achieved power in the House and Senate just as they abdicated power in the Speakership, Senate presidency (
pro tem) and the White House. It seems a rule of the political world that: [political rank] X [IQ] = a constant.
You could have as many lions as you want; led by donkeys, they could do nothing.
And this isn't a slam on Obama, necessarily. The only thing he did blameworthy was running for office a decade before he was ready to fill it. He is smart enough to learn to fill it before his first term ends, but I am not sure that this will be enough to save his presidency. By the time he learns to be a President, there will likely be a hostile legislature.
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 09:27:59 AM
What a disaster this year has been for liberals.
Are John Locke and Adam Smith spinning in their graves?
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 09:27:59 AM
Just...wow. What a disaster this year has been for liberals.
I wonder how soon the Languish Liberals will abandon Obama? It already seems to be happening elsewhere, but I suspect the Languish crowd is a bit more stubborn than most.
Do I count as a Liberal?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 20, 2010, 09:36:16 AM
Do I count as a Liberal?
Do you believe in the ideals of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets?
If so then yes.
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 09:27:59 AM
Just...wow. What a disaster this year has been for liberals.
I wonder how soon the Languish Liberals will abandon Obama? It already seems to be happening elsewhere, but I suspect the Languish crowd is a bit more stubborn than most.
Why would a lost Senate race in Massachusetts induce anyone to "abandon" Obama? The only reason I can think of is to not back a loser.
What has suprised me is the rapidity with which the Languish swing vote has abandoned Obama.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2010, 09:41:16 AM
What has suprised me is the rapidity with which the Languish swing vote has abandoned Obama.
I was off the bandwagon before the Democratic primaries were completed. I still, you know, hope he does a good job. Either that or I just have to hope the Republicans come to their sense sometime between now and 2012.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2010, 09:41:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 09:27:59 AM
Just...wow. What a disaster this year has been for liberals.
I wonder how soon the Languish Liberals will abandon Obama? It already seems to be happening elsewhere, but I suspect the Languish crowd is a bit more stubborn than most.
Why would a lost Senate race in Massachusetts induce anyone to "abandon" Obama? The only reason I can think of is to not back a loser.
Not just the lost Senate race, of course.
There seems to be a growing percepetion that Obama is No True Liberal. A moderate in sheep's clothing, so to speak.
QuoteWhat has suprised me is the rapidity with which the Languish swing vote has abandoned Obama.
Why would that be surprising? It's not like it was all that strong of support to begin with.
Personally, he has done about as well as I could have hoped - I suspect my own tepid support is exactly why the more hardcore liberals are getting rather pissed off at him.
After all, if
McCain's his Iraq and Afghanistan policies are looked on pretty favorably by me (as an example) you know they are going to be pissing some people off.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 08:57:43 AM
Anyway glad to see a RINO take office. :showoff:
I wouldn't call him a RINO. He's maybe slightly on the moderate side of the GOP, but as a conservative I don't find anything hugely objectionable about him.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 20, 2010, 09:36:16 AM
Do I count as a Liberal?
Do you believe in the ideals of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets?
If so then yes.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 09:46:26 AM
There seems to be a growing percepetion that Obama is No True Liberal. A moderate in sheep's clothing, so to speak.
That is one of the perceptions I'm seeing. The other is that Obama is still The One True Liberal Redeemer, but he is being either misled or controlled by those around him, or that he is showing a momentary lapse of judgment by placating the somewhat more moderate factions of his party.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 09:43:13 AM
I was off the bandwagon before the Democratic primaries were completed. I still, you know, hope he does a good job. Either that or I just have to hope the Republicans come to their sense sometime between now and 2012.
Unless Obama magically becomes a conservative, I will continue to hope he fails :)
I just hope Obama gets off his target fixation. There is more to governing than fucking healthcare.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 19, 2010, 10:43:52 PM
The funny/sad thing for the GOP now is, though, I bet Brown is now their #1 prospect for a Presidential run.
I would have a hard time finding a reason not to support him as a primary candidate. I mean, he's no community activist or anything, but he has a decent resume. We had a GOP actor as Prez, why not a male model? :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 20, 2010, 10:16:53 AM
I just hope Obama gets off his target fixation. There is more to governing than fucking healthcare.
The Obama that governs least governs best :)
I do enjoy Spellus' and DG's agony. So delicious.
If only CountMoveOn.org was here, my nipples would explode in delight.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2010, 09:32:59 AM
He is smart enough to learn to fill it before his first term ends, but I am not sure that this will be enough to save his presidency. By the time he learns to be a President, there will likely be a hostile legislature.
Worked for Clinton.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 20, 2010, 10:36:48 AM
Worked for Clinton.
Agreed, and that's why I qualified my answer as I did.
I would love to see a re-enactment of the Clinton-bipartisanmoderates partnership that brought in welfare reform.
I would argue that Clinton as president was always a stronger leader than Obama as President ever has been, though. Clinton had much less to learn than Obama about being President. Obama has a lot more charisma and better judgment on his side, though.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2010, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 09:46:26 AM
There seems to be a growing percepetion that Obama is No True Liberal. A moderate in sheep's clothing, so to speak.
Obama is still The One True Liberal Redeemer, but he is being either misled or controlled by those around him, or that he is showing a momentary lapse of judgment by placating the somewhat more moderate factions of his party.
It's the Czar's advisers!
Clinton was able to accomplish things as President because he's the son of a car salesman; he knew how to make deals happen. Clinton is a natural deal maker. Obama hasn't shown he can hammer through a deal on anything substantial yet, I think part of the problem is Obama just doesn't know how to work with other politicians very well. He'll have to learn if he wants to have anything to campaign on in 2012.
Obama is smart and he speaks well, but there's many reasons I said he was too inexperienced to be President. One of the important ones is, you don't learn the art of back room politicking in any book or by teaching constitutional law classes, that's stuff you only learn by doing it.
I also said before the Democratic primaries were over that Obama was a moderate politician and that the fringe left would hate him. Pretty much his entire behavior as President can be characterized as moderate. He's not done anything stupid in Iraq (he's doing a controlled withdrawal just like I always said), and he's devoting more resources to Afghanistan (the fringe want us out of there right now); he's also shown he isn't very committed to the liberal sacred cows. He abandoned the public option pretty readily when he realized he needed to do that in order to pass health care reform.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
I would argue that Clinton as president was always a stronger leader than Obama as President ever has been, though. Clinton had much less to learn than Obama about being President. Obama has a lot more charisma and better judgment on his side, though.
His first year was a disaster. :huh:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 20, 2010, 11:21:04 AM
I also said before the Democratic primaries were over that Obama was a moderate politician and that the fringe left would hate him. Pretty much his entire behavior as President can be characterized as moderate. He's not done anything stupid in Iraq (he's doing a controlled withdrawal just like I always said), and he's devoting more resources to Afghanistan (the fringe want us out of there right now); he's also shown he isn't very committed to the liberal sacred cows. He abandoned the public option pretty readily when he realized he needed to do that in order to pass health care reform.
Of course, the moderation he's espoused hasn't gotten him anywhere, has it?
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 10:06:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 20, 2010, 09:36:16 AM
Do I count as a Liberal?
Do you believe in the ideals of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets?
If so then yes.
:lmfao:
What? That is what Liberalism is all about. For some bizarre and hopefully temporary reason people use that term to mean 'Leftist'. Since they have not invented another word to replace Liberalism I demand it keep its original definition. When George Bush said Liberal Democracy was the best form of government he did not mean he wanted to Democrats in power.
Seriously why not just say 'Leftist'? Some right wing commentators in the US do do that and I am very thankful.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 20, 2010, 11:30:12 AM
Of course, the moderation he's espoused hasn't gotten him anywhere, has it?
It has made him at least tolerable to me. The main reason I was excited about him at first was that he said pretty moderate things. I guess I have to say he has lived up to that. He cannot handle Congress at all of course.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2010, 10:10:27 AM
Unless Obama magically becomes a conservative, I will continue to hope he fails :)
I would say he is pretty darn cautious and conservative in what he does. He basically is staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan that is hardly a radical thing to do.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
I would argue that Clinton as president was always a stronger leader than Obama as President ever has been, though. Clinton had much less to learn than Obama about being President.
Hell, as an
ex-President, I would say Bill has been a better leader than Obama :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 11:36:49 AM
I would say he is pretty darn cautious and conservative in what he does. He basically is staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan that is hardly a radical thing to do.
I don't have any major issues with his Iraq & Afghanistan policies, since you mentioned them-- I'm not sure I'd chalk that up to Obama's supposed conservatism, but rather simple inertia. Now what else has he been so darn conservative about?
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 11:36:49 AM
I would say he is pretty darn cautious and conservative in what he does. He basically is staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan that is hardly a radical thing to do.
I wouldn't call his Afghan policy staying the course.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2010, 11:40:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 11:36:49 AM
I would say he is pretty darn cautious and conservative in what he does. He basically is staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan that is hardly a radical thing to do.
I wouldn't call his Afghan policy staying the course.
We know, you mention it everytime it comes up. Face it though, almost no here agrees with you.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 11:34:50 AM
Seriously why not just say 'Leftist'? Some right wing commentators in the US do do that and I am very thankful.
You may someday convince us to replace "Liberal" with "Leftist", but good luck getting the rest of the country to change :P
"Liberal" in common parlance means leftist, at least in the US. Hence the need to clarify adding "Lockean" or "Classical" if you are referring to the "old" type of Liberalism.
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 09:46:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2010, 09:41:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2010, 09:27:59 AM
Just...wow. What a disaster this year has been for liberals.
I wonder how soon the Languish Liberals will abandon Obama? It already seems to be happening elsewhere, but I suspect the Languish crowd is a bit more stubborn than most.
Why would a lost Senate race in Massachusetts induce anyone to "abandon" Obama? The only reason I can think of is to not back a loser.
Not just the lost Senate race, of course.
There seems to be a growing percepetion that Obama is No True Liberal. A moderate in sheep's clothing, so to speak.
QuoteWhat has suprised me is the rapidity with which the Languish swing vote has abandoned Obama.
Why would that be surprising? It's not like it was all that strong of support to begin with.
The support that Obama had about this time last year reminds me of the support that Bush the First had in 1991. It was broad, but incredebly shallow. The support Obama had wasn't that broad, or probably that shallow, but I still see some similarity.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 11:34:50 AM
Since they have not invented another word to replace Liberalism I demand it keep its original definition.
This ain't France. We don't have some hidebound Academy that pontificates on the correct meaning and usage of words.
And if we did, I'd suspect that they wouldn't make you a member, or care much about what you demand.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2010, 11:43:50 AM
We know, you mention it everytime it comes up. Face it though, almost no here agrees with you.
Nice attitude Timmy.
We've never discussed whether Obama is staying the course. We discussed whether the policy he outlined at West Point was an exit strategy or not. Shelf said it was not, one or two other posters might have agreed with him. Clearly he is not staying the course as Bush never mentioned a date for troop withdrawals to begin and Obama hadn't either until the West Point speech.
So, here's the question. How much of this was the economy, and how much of this was healthcare?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 20, 2010, 12:38:56 PM
So, here's the question. How much of this was the economy, and how much of this was healthcare?
I suspect that more of it was the economy, and less of it was health care, than the pundits would generally have you think.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2010, 10:04:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 08:57:43 AM
Anyway glad to see a RINO take office. :showoff:
I wouldn't call him a RINO. He's maybe slightly on the moderate side of the GOP, but as a conservative I don't find anything hugely objectionable about him.
Who is a RINO then?
There is no true RINO when you're out of power but you can find many of them while in power. :lmfao:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 20, 2010, 11:43:50 AM
We know, you mention it everytime it comes up. Face it though, almost no here agrees with you.
The first time he makes an affirmative statement and does not engage in his passive-aggressive rhetorical questioning, you slam him. Thanks. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Faeelin on January 20, 2010, 11:30:12 AMOf course, the moderation he's espoused hasn't gotten him anywhere, has it?
Well, he went up in my books when he didn't do any of the
stupid things the hard core left
wanted him to do in Iraq/Afghanistan. By and large he's earned some respect from me on those fronts. The bailout was horrific, but I'm not sure any bailout wouldn't have been. That doesn't take him off the hook for it, but I don't rake him over the coals for it, either.
The problem is that only a very small number of people saw Obama as a moderate during the campaign. I think the hardcore left just drank Obama
the person up, they thought he was like
them. They genuinely thought he was a MoveOn guy putting up a vaguely moderate front to get elected. They were just waiting with baited breath for his swearing in, when he'd fly in on his golden-plated pegasus and save America from the troubling right-wing path it had been on for so many years.
The truth of the matter is that Obama
was a moderate. The problem is, only moderates really thought he was one. Sure, a few conservatives realized Obama was a moderate (myself included in this), and a few of the hard core leftists did, as well. However, most of the really conservative types thought Obama was a lunatic lefty, most of the lunatic left thought Obama was one of them.
The fact that he's behaved as a moderate means nothing to most conservatives, hard core right-wing Republicans don't give a shit how moderate Obama is by and large--he's still a democrat. The fringe left are pissed that he's moderate. The actual center of the country is just pissed that he's been inept.
So no, his being a moderate hasn't done much for him.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2010, 11:46:02 AM
You may someday convince us to replace "Liberal" with "Leftist", but good luck getting the rest of the country to change :P
"Liberal" in common parlance means leftist, at least in the US. Hence the need to clarify adding "Lockean" or "Classical" if you are referring to the "old" type of Liberalism.
You (and others) use "liberal" like the DDR used "Democratic." Good luck getting anyone with brains and knowledge to agree with you.
I accept that "Liberal Democrats" are self-defined and are what a knowledgeable poster would call "leftists;" what i have always wondered is why anyone but them goes along with that misnomer.
Quote from: dps on January 20, 2010, 12:14:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2010, 11:34:50 AM
Since they have not invented another word to replace Liberalism I demand it keep its original definition.
This ain't France. We don't have some hidebound Academy that pontificates on the correct meaning and usage of words.
And if we did, I'd suspect that they wouldn't make you a member, or care much about what you demand.
We however have dictionaries. When people develop wildly different meanings for words it only serves to confuse discourse.
I think the people on the left who are disappointed in Obama are the ones who didn't pay enough attention and got caught up in the symbolism of it all. As I argued then, if you read his statements and the rest, he isn't a liberal. Now, having said that, he's probably the most liberal president since LBJ but I think that's more an indication of how much political discourse moved to the right in those decades than anything else. In short I agree with OvB.
And, as I said during the election Iraq, at this point, doesn't matter. The SOFA which outlines American withdrawal and sets dates was signed by Bush, once that happened there was effectively no difference between any of the candidates - except, maybe, for Kucinich and Gravel.
From what I've read Brown deserved this and he could be an interesting Senator, though of his policy ideas I'm not impressed.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2010, 12:58:46 PM
You (and others) use "liberal" like the DDR used "Democratic."
I don't believe I do. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2010, 12:51:17 PM
Who is a RINO then?
There is no true RINO when you're out of power but you can find many of them while in power. :lmfao:
I generally dislike using that term to begin with, but if pressed I would say maybe Olympia Snowe (despite being named one of the "Top 100 Conservatives" by the Telegraph). Lincoln Chafee would be the very definition of a RINO-- that is, before he decided to leave the party altogether.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2010, 04:21:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2010, 12:58:46 PM
You (and others) use "liberal" like the DDR used "Democratic."
I don't believe I do. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.
QuoteThe Liberal Party exists to build a Liberal Society in which every citizen shall possess liberty, property and security and none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. Its chief care is for the rights and opportunities of the individual, and in all spheres it sets freedom first.
http://www.liberal.org.uk/
QuoteWhat does the Liberal Party stand for?
We are the party of initiative and enterprise;
We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.
We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.
We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.
We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.
We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment.
We believe in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.
We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.
http://www.liberal.org.au/about/ourbeliefs.php
QuoteThe Liberal Party of Canada is committed to the view that the dignity of each individual man and woman is the cardinal principle of democratic society and the primary purpose of all political organization and activity in such a society.
The Liberal Party of Canada is dedicated to the principles that have historically sustained the Party: individual freedom, responsibility and human dignity in the framework of a just society,and political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all persons.
... the Liberal Party of Canada subscribes to the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons under the rule of law and commits itself to the protection of these
essential values and their constant adaptation to the changing needs of modern Canadian society.
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/lpc-2009-constitution-en.pdf
These positions, from real liberal parties, don't correspond to much in the modern US Democratic Party (and, in fact, are in opposition to many of them). The use of the term "Liberal" in the US contradicts its use elsewhere in the world, and especially where they have liberal parties. I will go with those who have enough faith in their understanding of the term that they will use it for their party name.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2010, 04:55:30 PM
These positions, from real liberal parties, don't correspond to much in the modern US Democratic Party (and, in fact, are in opposition to many of them). The use of the term "Liberal" in the US contradicts its use elsewhere in the world, and especially where they have liberal parties. I will go with those who have enough faith in their understanding of the term that they will use it for their party name.
I have no horse in the "what does the word Liberal mean" race, however I think your comment that the positions of the various Liberal parties are in opposition to the US Democratic Party. First I don't think the Democratic Party would ever argue that they are opposed to individual liberty and would agree with the statements of principle that you have quoted. Second, at least with respect to the Liberal Party of Canada, they identify very publicly as identifying themselves as similar to the US Democratic Party, and generally advocate for policy roughly similar to what the Democratic Party does.
Quote from: derspiess on January 20, 2010, 04:32:04 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2010, 12:51:17 PM
Who is a RINO then?
There is no true RINO when you're out of power but you can find many of them while in power. :lmfao:
I generally dislike using that term to begin with, but if pressed I would say maybe Olympia Snowe (despite being named one of the "Top 100 Conservatives" by the Telegraph). Lincoln Chafee would be the very definition of a RINO-- that is, before he decided to leave the party altogether.
Based on voting records and position stances Brown is slightly to the left of Snowe and to the right of Ben Nelson. Granted, this record was accumulated as a member of the most liberal Republican state party in the nation, so it's totally possible that he may tack hard to the right. Although he is running for reelection in a mere three years with Obama on the ballot.
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2010, 05:06:03 PM
I have no horse in the "what does the word Liberal mean" race, however I think your comment that the positions of the various Liberal parties are in opposition to the US Democratic Party. First I don't think the Democratic Party would ever argue that they are opposed to individual liberty and would agree with the statements of principle that you have quoted. Second, at least with respect to the Liberal Party of Canada, they identify very publicly as identifying themselves as similar to the US Democratic Party, and generally advocate for policy roughly similar to what the Democratic Party does.
I'd add that I don't think the Democrats work as an ideological party. How would you define the Democrats' governing ideology? I don't think they have one unlike, say, the Republicans, Labour, the Gaullists. The Democrats seem to me far more like an old-fashioned coalition of interests. They've core issues rather than core beliefs.
Grumbler-- I'm confused as to how all that confirms that I "use 'liberal' like the DDR used 'Democratic.' " Can you tell me where I have done that so much?
I was merely pointing out that Valmy (and apparently you) might as well adjust to how the term is used in the US. If you want to hold yourself & everyone else to a predominately foreign usage of the word, go ahead, but you might as well start speaking the Queen's English since, you know, we should defer to the people who use that for their country's name.
In any case, I don't typically use the word "liberal" by itself, given the confusion that can go either way. I usually say "leftist" when referring to those left of the political center and "Lockean Liberal" or "Classical Liberal" when referring to the type of "Liberal" our friend Valmy pretends to be :P
Btw, odd that you use both the Canadian and Australian Liberal parties as examples, given how the Canadian Liberals tend toward the left & Aussie Liberals are the right :D
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2010, 05:07:03 PM
Based on voting records and position stances Brown is slightly to the left of Snowe and to the right of Ben Nelson. Granted, this record was accumulated as a member of the most liberal Republican state party in the nation, so it's totally possible that he may tack hard to the right. Although he is running for reelection in a mere three years with Obama on the ballot.
I think comparing voting records on the state level (Brown) & national level (Snowe) is a bit dodgy. I'm going by what Brown's more recent stances have been, and to me that puts him to the right of Snowe. I don't think he would have voted the way Snowe did to move the Democrat health care bill along, for example.
The new face the family values party. :perv:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2F2010-01-20-scottbrown1.jpg&hash=0aed46dd87ac75957a217763f2a9b2d7f1dc41ff)
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 11:41:28 PM
Hey, maybe the President shouldn't be talking about cutting the deficit and instead asking what happened to the trillions of dollars in tax cuts and war spending under Dubya. Maybe, if the "right-wingers discredit themselves" by subscribing to an "intellectually bankrupt ideology", you shouldn't make noises about bipartisanship and then seem like a tool when nobody wants to make huggy faces at you.
I don't think blaming Bush won't work any more. Even if there's truth to it it comes across as sour grapes. Also I think it's a very good thing for Obama that twice the number of people think he's doing 'enough' to be bipartisan than think Republicans in Congress are (I believe Obama's around 50% and the Republicans are at about 25-30%) even if it doesn't lead to any great bipartisan bill.
Incidentally I do think that this whole deficit reduction thing is somewhat implausible. The truth is that to cut the deficit the US needs to have some combination of tax rises, military spending cuts, medicare cuts and social security cuts. I can't see how any of them are going to happen any time soon because they'd all be far too unpopular and far too easy to attack. At the minute it seems to me like the US is basically trying to have a mildly social democratic system, with a big (and expensive) military and rather low taxes (especially personal taxes). Something has to give.
All the comments I'm hearing from Democrats in Mass (or ex pat Massholes) indicate outrage over "their" seat being taken. Ridiculous. Some even say Coakley was a suck candiate and ran a suck campaign and are pissed off anyway.
Hitler found out about Brown's win. :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2010, 05:51:23 PM
The new face the family values party. :perv:
If he wins the presidency it could be even better than the Bush twins.
Quote from: Fate on January 20, 2010, 05:51:23 PM
The new face the family values party. :perv:
Needs implants.