Scott Brown is owning the dems in the commonwealth state

Doubling down, getting tough, ramming things through equals political suicide. The voting public is screaming at the top of their lungs, can anyone hear them!? Healthcare for instance, the current bills are legislative equivalents of Frankenstein. No public option, no real price controls, unfair deals, etc., all they will do is raise costs and raise taxes. The same problems need to be addressed but the whole process needs a fresh start: more open, less agenda driven, more balanced, more logical, more participation for all interested parties. Where is LBJ? Folks, can you say LEADERSHIP? The White House deferred to the Congress, big mistake.

 

This is not true

There is plenty of evidence and polls showing that THE REASON Independents and Progressives are upset with Obama and his agenda is that he isn't being forceful enough. That they want the "change" he promised and has not delivered. The reason we are seeing elections like MA happening is not because of republicans (who truly are irrelevant), but Independents (and some dems) that are not pleased that Obama keeps trying to appease everyone and not standing for the principals he espoused.

 

Obama needs to get tough. Period. No more Mr. nice guy professor who never shows emotion. People are hurting and gigantically pissed, primarily about Wall Street and bailouts for those individuals and they are not happy with an insurance company dominated health bill that makes Obama look like a chump.

Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street guys, including his main guy, Rom sp? Emmanuel, who used his couple years out of politics to cash in big time in the financial markets. Obama needs to take on the greedsters. If he doesn't it means only bad things. 1) He is powerless against them. 2) He feels incorrectly he is powerless against them. 3) He is a corporate guy himself and perhaps hopes to cash in himself. 4) He is a dumb and cautious centrist, that just won't cut it when people thought they were going to get change in the time of crisis.

Fire Emmanuel and some of the other corporate lackeys. Time to show some audacity of hope.

 

Good post, Dan. Very well said.

 

"We're about to learn whether Obama can deliver electoral votes," wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas on his Twitter page on Monday.

President Obama keeps making these dramatic, last minute trips to "save the day," like some sort of modern day super hero. But, as far as I can recall, he has never saved anything.

Not the Olympics for Chicago.
Not the Governor's races in New Jersey or Virginia.
Not the Copenhagen Climate Summit.
Not Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat in the bluest state in the union.
Not even his own health care legislation.

But the Democrats still have 59 votes in the Senate, which is still quite high by historical standards, so maybe he can still put together a health care bill. does he have the leadership skills to do it? The proof will be in the pudding.

In any case, Obama was not helpful with regards to the outcome of this race.

 

Says it better than I did. Many in the country have lost roughly a percent per year in the purchasing power for 30 years since Reagan and the shift of resources to the weathy. They shoud be pissed and not just like they are urged to be at gays, immigrants, minorities, the highly educated, though some espouse the economics that led to the wealth shift

********
Did Massachusetts Just Reject Rahm, Baucus, and Geithner?


Share Comments 116 How did it come to pass that all of the populist fervor moved independents in Massachusetts to be excited about a senator who will inevitably side with insurance moguls, hedge fund operators, anti-choice zealots, tea partiers, and drug companies?

It is really rather simple. They were told that their vote was a national referendum and the Obama Administration had sided time after time with the drug companies, insurance companies, and big banks. The Administration had a choice and they made it.

And the voters did not like it. Anyone associated with insider deals, bank bailouts, executive bonuses, and individual mandates to buy lousy private insurance was not on their side.

So now the arguments begin among the timid, ingrown class of humanity known as campaign consultants, bundlers and many elected officials - fight or try to find common ground with those that FDR would have called enemies.

The Senate authorized passing health care reform by a 51 vote majority when it authorized the budget many months ago. It has not been necessary for a long time to satisfy the demands of Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh. And it is still not necessary.

There should be no unseemly rush to pass legislation before the new senator from Massachusetts is seated. There should be a principled effort to pass real health reform using the budget reconciliation process already approved and widely used in early Administrations that had the courage of their convictions.

The voters are angry. They deserve to be. And the only issues are who is going to harness that energy and to what end. The Obama Administration has to choose between the corporate interests that are so influential with key staffers in the White House and the change that voters assumed in sweeping Obama to victory.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kieschnick/did-massachusetts-just-re_b_429152.html

 

that would be interesting if you buy into the hype that its a vote on health care reform. there are plenty of issues out there, starting with the fact this woman blew a 7 point lead in the final month of the campaign.

its like claiming that obama won because he championed healthcare reform. there are plenty reason why obama won, and is still personally popular despite his party's problems

 

His campaign was based almost entirely on the fact that he would kill the healthcare bill as the 41st vote.

I think the majority of America hates this bill (for one reason or another) and it amuses me that despite that hatred, and despite losing the bluest of blue seats, the seat that belonged to the "liberal Lion" for so long, Nancy and her gang are trying to come up with a strategy to force this bill through anyway.

 

but his campaign only gained momentum as this woman screwed up. if this was truly based on the healthcare bill coakley would have never had a chance.

 

I find it very ironic that you are demanding a less agenda driven and more participation legistlative process and calling for LBJ. LBJ was a master at ramming things through Congress and manipulating legislators by hook or crook to his way.

 

The change they want is not him forcing through a deal that was concocted behind closed doors for special interests groups. Americans voted for Obama because they thought he was serious when he talked about changing the way Washington did business. They thought he was serious when he said he wouldn't bow to special interest groups. Turns out all that was just campaign speak. Like Pelosi said, "He was for a lot of things on the campaign trail. Giggle giggle"

A bill that caters to the unions, Nebraska, pays off Louisiana, doesn't do enough to control costs but DOES mandate coverage, doesn't address tort reform (which like it or not he said he was for) etc. etc. etc. is not what the American people had in mind.

Please don't read this as a conservative bashing post, because I already said I was on board with healthcare reform and am not necessarily opposed to a public option. My opposition to Obama is the same opposition to him I had when he ran in the election. I don't believe he meant anything he said. I think he was just a smart politician who campaigned on the right catchphrases but doesn't have any intention of being what he promised.

I want him to kill the wiretaps. I want real meaningful healthcare reform that isn't a massive debt sinkhole. I want an open and honest government.

I, like most Americans, even ones who voted for him, have not seen a hint of the president he promised to be.

 

Or it gained momentum as the healthcare bill grew closer and closer to passing.

I'm not saying this is all about the healthcare bill, because obviously it isn't, but it is crazy to think they would have voted him in if they supported the bill. He has not hidden from the fact that he will be the 41st vote. He's made it a central point in his campaign. That "impartial" moderator chastised him for betraying Kennedy's legacy.

If the people of Mass were for this bill they would NOT have voted for Brown.

 

If this makes you as happy as a Rockets Championship I think your priorities are skewed.

This election certainly wasn't good for Obama and the Democrats but at the sametime that ignores the fact that the Democrats still hold a huge majority in the Senate and House along with the Presidency.

As far as for the health care bill what this pretty much means is that the Senate version gets passed which was going to be the likely situation even if Coakley had won since Nelson, Lieberman and a few others weren't going to vote for the House version.

 

Is the House going to be able to hold the votes necessary without the Stupak(sp?) amendment? Pelosi barely got her party to vote for it the first time (3 or 4 votes?). I will be surprised if she can get the Senate version passed.

 

so now its just the people of mass, who actually have a healthcare plan.

this is a unique situation starting with a woman who is no where near fit to be a candidate for a senate sit. she was popular for as an atty general for a reason. she was not popular as a senate candidate for a reason

i know the healthcare bill is unpopular with many people for many reasons, but this election was about a whole lot more issues, starting with a woman who shouldn't have been running for this seat in the first place. that is the biggest criticism i have of the democrats on this race.

 

I would say his campaign gain more momentum every time people found out things like the deal union cut on the health care bill.

 

She was very popular among the dems, won the primary by a huge margin. On any other year, she would have won this easily, remember this is the state that keeps sending Barney Frank to washington.

 

Well the people of Texas didn't get to vote for Scott Brown, so yeah, it's the people of Mass...

She may have run a bad campaign, but why do you say she wasn't fit for the senate seat? She won a primary and was leading in the polls. I think it is a liberal lie that she lost because she was just such a bad candidate. "Oh this has nothing to do with policies, we just don't like Maaaaatha."

LOL

Keep dreaming. Americans are mad at Washington. George Bush's presidency planted the seeds of anger and frustration and then Obama encouraged America to act on them. He inspired Americans to let loose their frustration and believe in and fight for change again. He awakened a sleeping giant by convincing Americans that government SHOULD work for the people again. When it turns out he isn't much different, that anger that he encouraged has turned on him.

This isn't a praise for Republicans, because they are stupid if they think this is about an embrace of hard right policies. This isn't an embrace of anything, it is a rejection of everything that Washington had done for years.

 

The problem though is part of the "change" he promised was to end the rancor in DC and be a more bipartisan President. To a certain extent that doesn't work with trying to get a controversial agenda passed through as the Republicans and Blue Dogs were never just going to be cowed or charmed by Obama.

Anyway before people alternately panic or orgasm, over this election consider that both Reagan and Clinton suffered dramatic defeats to their party in the middle of their first terms. Likely if not for 9/11 GW Bush probably would've too. Its not unusual at all for a first term president to suffere setbacks once the euphoria of election wears out and inevitably campaign promises meet the hard reality of governing. At the moment this is a setback but no more near the end of the Obama Presidency. Depending on what happens the next few months possibly not even the end of the Democrat Congressional majority.

 

The problem with that analysis is that Mass instead elected a moderate to conservative candidate with a record of voting in favor of business interests. For that matter turnout was relatively good so it wasn't as though depressed turnout allowed conservatives to capitalize by voting as a block.