Looks like we're about to lose Ted Kennedy's seat and the reason is Obama's insurance company gift.

[ddeclue]

Instead of going to the left and backing real health care reform, the plan they are trying to pass is a total gift to the insurance companies and a giant screw you to the American taxpayer and citizen. The citizens of Masachusetts have already been forced to do "personal mandates" and know better.

If this gift to the insurance companies passes with personal mandates without a public option or better yet SINGLE PAYER, then expect to see a lot more seats lost in 2010 and 2012.

The best thing Obama could do would be to go up to Massachusetts and announce he is scrapping the existing plan and going back for SINGLE PAYER instead.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[RBInMaine]

1. And on what planet are there the votes for single payer? You are nutty.

[ddeclue]

3. Better to fail to pass a GOOD bill than to actually pass a BAD bill.

Passing a BAD bill is actually what is "nutty".

[RBInMaine]

36. Doing nothing at all is what is most nutty. Please. Find the ground.

[provis99]

40. No, doing nothing is better than the current Republican/corporate bill in play.

I refuse to call it a Democratic bill.

[Maru Kitteh]

53. How many Republicans are supporting the bill? That's just daft.

[bvar22]

100. That is the really bad part.

The Democrats are giving the Republicans everything they wanted (Mandates, No Public Option, No cost controls, ineffective and unenforceable "regulation") WITHOUT the Republicans taking ANY political risk.

ALL the Republicans have to do NOW is sit back and say, "Yep. We opposed it"
when The Bills start coming in.

LESS than 35% of ALL Americans support MANDATES without a Public Option.
All projections forecast Premiums INCREASING over the next few years.
America won't like this.
They WILL blame the Democrats,
and rightly so.

In my 42 years of Democratic Party political activism, I have NEVER seen a political party so determined to commit political suicide.

[shopgreen]

7. They never even tried!! So do not fib and say the votes were not there!!

[RBInMaine]

34. Get real. It would never happen now, especially in the Senate.

[shopgreen]

63. Get real. You and I will never know for now!

[sabrina 1]

77. Why didn't they go to reconciliation to begin with?

That would have required only 51 votes.

You have been fooled. The country wanted a Universal Health Care system. Wall St. wanted a privatized system. Private Insurance paid millions to get what they wanted. The American people have no lobbyists in DC. Guess who won?

A private insurance company internal memo after the Senate vote: "WE WON!!"

Don't waste your time trying to spin what happened with this so-called Health Care bill. A majority of the American people who are NOT blind, already know. And I think the OP is right. There is no enthusiam to go out and work for a party that has basically told the base 'we don't need you' and a COS who has issued an order to 'ignore the left'.

I hope Coakley wins only because Brown is so awful. But if we had any other choice at all, I would not want her in the Senate. I would like to feel more enthusiastic, but like so many others, it's just not possible.

[suzie]

44. Why promulgate this fantasy that there were enough votes for single payer?

[shopgreen]

62. Why promulgate the fantasy that there were NOT enough votes for single payer!

[Kaleva]

76. Who in the Senate supported single payer?

[Leopolds Ghost]

81. Why promulgate the fantasy that the current bill was not an Industry Written Bill written 8 yrs ago?

That was designed to force all Americans to purchase health insurance in order to "permanently insulate the insurance industry from single payer and the Baby Boom bust"?

They SAID SO in the Washington Monthly 4-6 years ago back when Edwards first endorsed this bill. They were so goddamn proud, Brookings guys and neolib blue dog Dems. "This time we won't make the mistake Clinton made, we're letting the Industry in on the drawing board. Industry is writing this bill" they said.

In anticipation of the next Dem president (they were expecting Kerry to win.) Would Kerry have gone along? Sadly, yeah.

[Maru Kitteh]

17. Exactly. Why not demand platinum plated unicorns too?

[ddeclue]

20. No thanks I'll settle for SINGLE PAYER.

[Maru Kitteh]

46. And I will settle for BEING THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND cause *that's* going to happen too.

[Leopolds Ghost]

83. Will you settle for an industry written bill that was designed to protect industry profits

By turning health insurance into a private, unregulated utility that Americans are required to purchase?

You're fine with that?

Then you know, the industry and then-leading "health industry insider" Dems like Edwards and Daschle sat down in think tanks and wrote this bill 6-8 years ago, right? The math was designed to "permanently protect industry profits from potential collapse" due to the baby bust, and "prevent any resultant push for single payer, which is unacceptable to the industry."

[Maru Kitteh]

87. Assuming that you are astute enough to understand SP isn't viable at this time

talk to me. I have two adult, working children with NO ACCESS to healthcare and NO INSURANCE WHATSOEVER. If either of them is in an accident it will ruin their financial lives for a decade. If either of them becomes ill with a life-threatening illness like cancer, they will die.

Single payer ain't gonna happen in this term or the next one.

People out there are dying. Right now. I have no use for you if you believe my daughters should be among them just so you can make a point against corporations.


What is your REALISTIC solution for something that can pass RIGHT NOW?

RIGHT NOW?

[LaydeeBug]

94. it's viable. Because we ONLY EVER NEEDED 51 votes, and you know it. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

97. Total bullshit. The votes are NOT there or 51 senators would be clamoring for it NOW. You fail.

[LaydeeBug]

106. Of COURSE IT IS. We need 51. Obama only WANTS 60, and you damn well know it.

[WonderGrunion]

110. Name 51 Senators that would vote for single payer

I have trouble getting above 40.

[LaydeeBug]

112. No. Name the reason YOU insist we need 60.

We need 51, and you know it. Actually, let's change that...we need 50, and Joe Biden's tie breaking vote, and you know it.

[WonderGrunion]

113. Because much of the actual reform part of the bill

can't be passed under reconciliation. That's because it's regulatory and not budgetary. Any regulatory reform must undergo a cloture vote which requires 60 votes in the Senate under current rules.

Glad to give you the civics primer.

[LaydeeBug]

115. Oh, but it can be MADE budgetary, and you know it. nt

[area51]

98. With mandated insurance,

people with severe injuries and illnesses will still die, because insurance != healthcare. To my knowledge, in countries with do use an insurance system, all the agencies are non-profit and heavily regulated by the government so they don't kill people like insurance companies do in the states.

[Maru Kitteh]

99. You fail too. You didn't answer the question.

[LaydeeBug]

108. No, YOU FAIL. We need *51* and anyone worth any salt KNOWS IT. nt

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. Everybody seems to forget this.

[LaydeeBug]

91. No. Everyone seems to forget that we ONLY EVER NEEDED 51 votes. nt

[Starbucks Anarchist]

96. Then name the 51 senators who support single payer.

Hell, name five.

Go ahead, I'm waiting. :eyes:

[LaydeeBug]

107. Stop moving the goal post. We need 51 votes for MEANINGFUL reform, AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT.

Anybody saying any different is a lying sack, and you know that too.

[LaydeeBug]

109. But since you asked, Feingold, Mikulski, Cardin, Boxer and Franken

Just off the top of my fucking head. Like I said, we needed 51 votes, and you know it. And that's because we only ever needed 51 votes, and you know it.

Thanks

[KharmaTrain]

117. Even Bernie Sanders Admitted There Weren't 20 Votes For SP

It could be debated that there may not have been 51 for a Public Option, but we'll never know.

It wasn't President Obama who set the 60 vote rule (what a stretch for someone to put that out there), it was determined by Senate leadership...all 100 members (including 59 Democrats...minus Franken) under the poor leadership of Reid. The only thing President Obama should be faulted for is trusting the legislative and letting them do their thing. Unlike booosh who ramrodded things thorugh (that many who abhored the "unitary executive) are expecting President Obama to do the same thing.

What those rooting for this bill to fail don't consider is that if this bill fails, their Single Payer dreams will be dead for years to come.

[WinkyDink]

35. Well, then, let's just offer Republican-backed bills from the git-go.

[Maru Kitteh]

54. How many Republicans are supporting and voting for this bill?

[dflprincess]

71. That's pretty much what was done with this bill

starting the bargaining from what should have been the final compromise position was not especially smart - unless this scam was the outcome being aimed for all the time.

The Republicans aren't supporting it because they know it's going just going to screw over the working and middle classes. Not that they care about that but when the public wakes up and figures out how the Democrats sold them out, the Republicans will be able to say they never supported it.

[CANDO]

92. That is not why the Pubs aren't supporting HCR.

You think in a million years the Pubs have the best interest of the working and middle classes in mind? I agree they will make that claim, but it is far from true. First and foremost, they want to preserve our current for profit health care. Everything in their world MUST be for profit. Citizens simply must not be allowed to do for themselves collectively, that is collectivism/communism don't you know! The blood coursing through your veins are a source for corporate profits, and don't you ever forget it!

[dflprincess]

105. I never said they actually care about the working and middle classes

but they do know that this insurance scam is going to screw us over big time and they aren't supporting it because they will be able to make political points reminding people they didn't vote for it (not that they'll bother reminding anyone they didn't support actual health care reform - but then, neither did the Democrats)

[LaydeeBug]

90. It's easy peasy since we ONLY EVERY NEEDED 51 votes, and you know it. nt

[tabasco]

2. Get lost.

Maybe you already are.

[ddeclue]

6. That's a rational argument..

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

68. Reading down the list, there is nobody responding to your post with anything resembling

rationality.

This thread illustrates how DU has become Insult Central. They are taking Freeper Lessons.

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. Hi bobbo!

You are right :hug:

:hi:

[bobbolink]

103. Great to see you again!

:yourock:

:hug:

[Dinger]

4. UNREC (nt)

[SeattleGirl]

74. x 100,000

[Maru Kitteh]

88. x (100,00)^2

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. Yeah, screw any alternative to the current industry lobbyist written bill designed 6 years ago.

:sarcasm:

[graywarrior]

5. Huge turnout at the Coakley/Clinton rally today

Dems are gonna turn out in droves to vote Tuesday. Quit with the doomsday reports.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Doug, here's some smelling salts.

Let's wait until Tuesday before we start writing obits, k?

[ddeclue]

11. It will be too late then.

[bikingaz]

70. Croakley will easily win this race period

I think that the media just jazzed this up for sales, the repubs are at their usual wishful thinking and Obama is going to seal the deal.
Really you can phone it in.

[TexasObserver]

9. It's the toll for crawfishing.

As I have said many times, the electorate will hold Democrats responsible for NOT being liberal enough in their actions. That's why the president's actions constantly cratering to the business right is unwarranted. He is never getting THEIR votes and he is losing some of his voters.

[Leopolds Ghost]

86. Bonus points for "cratering" to the Republicans -- you just made up a word for Dems bending to RW

In hopes of moving to the center-right to position themselves as the majority party of a rightward-trending Millenial generation.

PS-- my preferred method of crawfishing is to drop a line with a piece of kielbasa on it. No need to bottom feed.

[TexasObserver]

89. "crawfishing" = walking backwards

A crawfish, or cray fish, as some call it, moves backwards. Hence the term "crawfishing" for one who is backing away.

The toll for crawfishing is therefore the cost to the party and its objectives for backing away from its positions, as laid out in the 2008 election campaign.

By not delivering on his promises, by backing away from those campaign promises, and by groveling to get GOP and DINO approval, the president has largely wasted the mandate the country gave him. If Democrats lose congressional races, it's because the country is having a referendum on the president.

[bobbolink]

104. Great term, and absolutely agree with your last paragraph.

That wastage is truly a tragedy.

:cry:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. If we lose Ted Kennedy's seat...

it's because the voting majority of Mass. has shit for brains.

[gcomeau]

12. Yes, that's surely it...

Half of Massachusetts is going to vote for the REPUBLICAN candidate because... THEY WANT SINGLE PAYER! Why that's just so obvious I'm stunned I didn't see it before!

You have about as solid a grasp on reality as the geniuses telling the GOP their problem is that they have too many moderates and all they need to get more votes is swing further right.

[BunkerHill24]

13. I doubt this election would only be voted on based on HCR

Mass voters are well versed on Healthcare reform debates, indeed MASS is a one state were healthcare insurance reform have been debated on before this was on the national radar. So, if the Rethug wins, it can only be explained as voter fatigue toward the Democratic party.

[Mz Pip]

14. I guess Brown would be sooo

much better.

We shall see. Do the voters of MA really want Teddy's seat going to a Republican?

[stray cat]

15. The last 9 years were truly a blessing for the American People and our health care

we need more of the legacy of W and the GOP for health care reform. :sarcasm:

Maybe we will get lucky and no changes will be made to the current state of things! I'm happy I guess - I have good inexpensive insurance at least as long as I have my current job. Only my brothers life is in jeopardy because of non-insurability due to medical problems.

[provis99]

41. Oh yeah, and things are so much better with the DLC in charge.

Because now there are no warrantless wiretappings, torturing of prisoners, two wars going on, no Don't Ask Don't Tell, no expanded oil drilling off the coasts, etc. Oh wait, Obama continued all of those Bush policies. So why the fuck should I cheer again?

[treestar]

42. Prove there is still torturing of prisoners

Just for starters.

[IsItJustMe]

95. Same bull shit, only with a nice smile this time around. Nothing of real substance has changed.

[elocs]

16. I don't think anybody knows what is going to happen for sure in MA

and won't until after Tuesday. Then we for sure will hear all kinds of pontificating about what happened and why.

In the spring of last year we had a mayoral race in my city. The 2 candidates were a woman who was in her 50s and was on the city council and had lots of experience there. She was evidently sure she would win because she didn't campaign much and you didn't see many of her signs. Her opponent was a 25 year old guy with little political experience, but had a well recognized name because his dad runs a well known local garbage company. He campaigned his ass off and had signs up like Obama did.

I am sure you can guess who "surprisingly" won the election. Nothing loses like a candidate who is not enthused enough to run a good campaign, but has excuses afterwards.

[ddeclue]

23. And MA being in the who knows? column is a "good" thing?

:eyes:

[WillyT]

27. Great Point, But...

This race shouldn't even be close.

And yet it is.

Coakley was ahead by 30 points in November in several polls.

Not a good omen.

:shrug:

[elocs]

32. Like I said, even the best & most qualified candidate who runs a poor campaign can lose.

Some of the left may be demoralized and the right is fired up. That could make a difference. Maybe there is going to be an election in MA rather than a coronation. Either way, it ain't over till it's over.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

21. Another name caller! n/t

[lukasahero]

19. Maybe people could stop bitching long enough

to make a call or two to get out the vote here?

[rox63]

22. They'll have to drag my dead body through the streets before I see a repuke take Teddy's Senate seat

:banghead:

[ddeclue]

25. BOOKMARKED.. we'll see on Tuesday.

[LaydeeBug]

111. wow. root for the other guy much?

fucking sheesh

[taterguy]

26. Drama queen much?

[rox63]

29. There are worse things to be

BTW, no one I actually know in the real world would ever call me a drama queen.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rox63]

45. Get over yourself, dude...

:eyes:

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. That's some top rung hyper-bowl right there... n/t

[pipi_k]

24. I think the prudent thing to do is...

1. Wait till the election is over before pronouncing it "lost"

2. If Brown does win, find out from Democrats who didn't vote why they didn't, and, if need be, find out from Democrats and Independents who did vote, but voted for Brown, WHY they did so.


In other words, it's a bit premature to be making statements like "we've lost and here is the reason why".

[ddeclue]

28. Actually the PRUDENT thing to do is to fix the problem BEFORE you lose.

[timeforpeace]

47. You are on fire, and making WAY too much sense for this crowd.

[gateley]

30. Come back after the election on Tuesday and we'll see if you're correct. nt

[MUAD_DIB]

31. Thanks for the concern...

:eyes:

[taterguy]

48. OH NO!!, the dreaded eye roll

I have no retort that would be as devastating

:scared:

[MUAD_DIB]

66. You're right. You don't.

;)

[Divine Discontent]

37. I'm torn a little, but of course want the DEM to win over the

candidate who is clearly PRO-corporation (is against levies against bailout firms!!!), and anti-Gay. But, I'm also very displeased with the HCB and how it has all the crap still in it that doesn't look good. Why couldn't Obama have pushed hard for the PO with Lieberman? And didn't the CBO put out their financial report on Single Payer, and it was good? It is so frustrating.

Of course, the Dem candidate will push social issues better than the repub, and she is also against warfare for no reason - a BIG selling point with me to hope she gets into the Senate! Brown loves war.

[jonathon]

39. The democrats need to represent the people - the dems should listen to us

We all wanted real reform.

I don't think Coakley will lose, but I do believe that they are more to blame then voters who can't see the differentiation between the parties.

[treestar]

43. And McPuke and Falin lost because they were too moderate, too

All those right wingers stayed home in protest, and that's why they lost, right?

They just let Obama win, so they could have a communist President, rather than settle for a "liberal."

Right?

:sarcasm:


This is a right wing tactic. Not saying you are one, but you are using their nonsensical argument in reverse.

[quiller4]

49. Obama and the Senate health Care Bill both poll better in Mass. than Coakley does. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. While I'm not ready to give up hope, it looks like there are plenty on this thread with fingers

in their ears, yelling LALALALALALALALALALA!

[rox63]

57. You live in Mass?

I suspect not...

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. After the hyperbole you posted upthread, you have no credibility with me.

No I don't live in Mass. This thread was unrecc'd out of the box because of the DU'er refusal to even CONSIDER the notion that "Teddy's Seat" could be lost.

[rox63]

59. Don't give a flyin' f**k whether I have any credibility with you

I know my state. Martha's kinda boring, but she's got a solid reputation with the voters here. The only reason Mittens ever won here was because he lied out his ass and his opponent sucked.

[UTUSN]

52. What's this "WE" shit?!1 n/t

[hollowdweller]

55. Are there actually polls that show that is a deciding factor??

Or is that just your opinion?

[havocmom]

56. Um, isn't part of the problem a less than wonderful candidate?

Not the most inspiring campaigner, she.

[rox63]

60. No, but she's competent and widely respected around the state

[Blue-Jay]

61. WE'RE DOOMED!!!

[jtuck004]

64. Not nutty, heartfelt and sincere. And thank you for your post.

But I don't think going back is possible. Nor do I think we can afford to do that.

Despite where the votes are, or were, Mr. Obama had 3 choices.

1) He could have stood tall and said, again, exactly what he said on the radio "Public Option or no signature". If the measure had lost, at least he would have put forth the values that, imho, the majority that voted him in expected. At least he would have tried. (I would have bet he could have won, but we will never know). I think the people that backed him the first time would have stayed with him. It was a very real majority. I know the argument is that he didn't have the votes, but that is a somewhat milk toast perspective. We have had plenty of veterans that died against overwhelming force just to give us the right to have this conversation. But a few won. He could have stood at a podium, unafraid, and asked the voters who elected that democratic senator\congressperson to call in and tell them how they need help, to ask him or her why the rest of the country has to hurt because of their greed or the insufferable greed and arrogance of the insurance company owners they are beholden to. Put them on the air - talk about a compelling town meeting. It would have made the tea baggers look like weak tea. There are a lot more citizen votes than those of insurance companies or banks (Remember - Mr. Obama was elected with a clear majority. We have children who had never lived in a world where their government wasn't decided by a court that the ruling family put in power. Not this time).

But that is in the past.

2) Most importantly he could have realized that he was handed an economy in serious, serious trouble, and, knowing that health care, while important, may not be the first thing people losing their homes, families, food, heating, and self-respect think of, put health care on the back burner, and begin to encourage us to find ways to hire people so that money can begin to move. For dog's sake, they create business in third world countries with $1000 loans - are you going to tell me that we aren't that smart? It was just 17 years or so ago that we united under the banner "It's the Economy". It still is. Where is that sign? Someone get it out of the closet, please.

In the past sure, but this economy is still in trouble. He could stand up and say something like "I grew up watching good people in pain, watched their families struggle because we, the most powerful and creative country in the world can't figure out how to give basic health care to everyone, and I know we can. But we face something far worse today, an economy that is going to be good for no one. People have to eat before they can worry about health care. I am shelving health care until we are creating 150,000 jobs a month. To do that we are going to..." . well, he's got speech writers and economic advisers (or maybe he should get that last group from some nonprofits in Afghanistan and Africa - they know how to do big things with few resources.)

3) Or he could, and did, take a weaker position, and try to get "something" through to demonstrate "success", (as if everyone is 6 years old and he is giving them the candy they are struggling to reach from the store shelf. It won't be good for them, but it might pacify them long enough to get past the register). Given the plan that seems to be coming, (well, up until the Coakley race) it looks like it will force people with no money to buy insurance, as a sop to greedy companies who have shown time and time again that profit is more important than people. (Btw, the cost won't be covered by the so-called rebate, forcing these people to owe big fines with no hope of paying them - somewhat like student loans. Maybe they can leave the country? Nobody really likes the plan. Nobody. Not even Mr. Obama (do you see him really enthusiastically out there pumping up a plan that leaves so many people behind? Or is he playing golf and looking like he is relieved that Haiti came along and sucked up the news cycle? It's as if he just wants to stand with a smile and show he won something. (I wonder what he will be thinking the day the health care disaster passes, if it ever comes?)

I know there were a lot of problems with any of those, but he took the road nobody should have traveled, and that has made all the difference. Dang it. Yes, there was a stimulus, but that is mostly gone, and, while I believe it kept us from collapsing, we are still LOSING. jobs. Our economy only breaks even when we create 150,000 jobs a month or so. We need serious support for lots of small business owners, serious money put into tuition for adults to take classes and get some education in business and technical fields without accumulating debt (push it over the Internet, for cryin' out loud) , lots of business incubators to work on future-oriented products to serve a world with less oil and more heat. (Govt jobs are likely not an answer - we have so much debt now that we are possibly seeing the glimmerings of a crippling inflation, and then all hope of government spending is history). Begin to show some respect for the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan - they would go get Bin Laden and turn his little goofy butt over to us if we would quit shooting their friends and relatives (who are only mad at us for invading - they didn't much like what Bin Laden and the Tali ban had become anyway, until we gave them a reason to. This is still possible, but will take a lot longer now). Bring some soldiers home, via Haiti. Let them build things for a while, (it would be great therapy), and then they can come back here and start new companies. There are a thousand things to try, but we can't while this sorry excuse for paper shuffling called "health care" is going on. This summer is going to bring rising gas prices, inflation, weird weather, and more recession of our economy. A mandatory health insurance policy, even with mustard, is only good for one, maybe two meals. Then what do you do?

But, for a guy who campaigned on "change", I don't think this particular "change" is in his vocabulary. I think he is too invested in his ego. So I will be looking for another democrat to vote for after his single term. (And it WILL be a democrat. Any names come to mind? Other than someone a friend of mine calls "Over-and-done-with-Obama"?). Unlike Mr. Obama, I can admit I went down the wrong road, make a u-turn, and fix the problem without worrying about anything but the most important goal. I truly think he might be afraid of the way it would make him look.

Just never forget - the priorities of those in power today aren't the same as those of the people living in our communities, your neighbors. They are good people, and, unless you live next door to a Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson type, who is more interested in their own entertainment value than being a good citizen, you probably have a lot more in common than either one of you know. Try figuring out what it is. What we need is a "change" from America to really "united" states. It would do us more good than anything.

[northzax]

65. So the republicans can take over again?

Cause that totally was working. And maybe we can scrap the single that this bill is while swinging for the fences and try again in 2030. Instead of a halfway decent start down a path that has been impassable before, we should stop and wait for another more perfect time?

How about instead of being so (pardon my language) fucking negative, we try to be a little positive for once? How bout instead of us all sitting around whinging about what we didn't get, we talk about what we will get? What the adminstration and congress has done? Let's point out that 30 days after the President signs some sort of this bill, whatever comes out of the sausage factory, it will be illegal for an insurance company to deny you coverage because you had cancer? Or kick you off the rolls because you are too expensive based on a technicality? How about we discuss the adding (yes, by mandate) of 35 million people to insurance pools, which will increase the amount of money being spent on everyone? Or maybe the subsides to help people pay for it? (you call yay a giveaway, I call it the start of the Feds having a financial stake in regulating insurance companies. All of a sudden, the Feds have skin in the game, and 50 million middle class voters paying attention.) how about we discuss the people who live in areas that have no insurance competition? Why does Blue Cross charge more in Asheville, NC than New York City for the same thing, despite higher costs in New York? (you can't tell me that a doctor charges less for a visit in New York than Asheville) and that the exchanges will bring new competition to places that haven't been worth it for companies to enter? How about the idea that this bill, as imperfect as it will be, changes the health care game completely? Once this bill passes, when it passes, health care goes from something we collectively provide to those with jobs, children and the elderly (however imperfecty) to something everyone has access to, from an individual responsibility for most people (save the aformentioned children and elderly) to a collective responsibility. This bill is a game changer. It's certainly not a game winner, but it is an irrevocable step toward the workforce dependent care we have today. a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, right? So a few people get rich for a while. guess what? Someone always gets rich it's a small price to pay to change the rules of the game.

Health care not enough for you?

How about we discuss the fact that in one year the Obama administration has brought more actions against companies for unsafe working conditions and unfair pay practices than the Bushies did in 8? Or maybe increased enforcement of environmental regs? Increased enforcement of civil rights laws? How about a government that deals with science, not fantasy? Or how the adminstration has recovered 80% of the bank bailout (and made a *gasp* profit on that) with a plan to recover the rest? Bush gave that money away, Obama got most of it back. Good enough? Nope. Better? Oh hell yes.

So can we try and focus on the positive, while still pressing for more? Can we give them at least two years before going back to the Bush era?

[WT Fuheck]

67. I couldn't agree more.

[Blasphemer]

69. I don't think they'll lose the seat, but if they do I hope there is meaningful exit polling

Losing seats given the party's policies is inevitable. However, losing THIS seat would be beyond anything I think even the most pessimistic Democrats ever envisioned.

[donheld]

72. Nice try

on second thought, crap

[SeattleGirl]

73. Yeah, that ol' Obama. He actually has the power to wave the

magic wand and made everyone do whatever he wants (which of course, is whatever YOU want).

But god damnit all to hello dolly and back.

He just wouldn't do it.

And I'll bet he wouldn't JUST TO PISS YOU THE FUCK OFF!

Feel better now? :eyes:

[Truthiness Inspector]

75. Most PEOPLE, you know, people don't want this plan

What does that tell you? We don't want it. Period. We don't need be told what to do by people WE elected to tell US what to do. We do no like, insert lolkitty graphic. Do not want.

[spanone]

78. b u l l s h i t

[foo_bar]

79. "all politics is local" - Tip O'Neill

I think if your premise were literally true, the Dem primary (which is usually more like a general in Mass., since the state gop rarely fields a viable candidate) would have produced a more "Vermont-like" (for lack of a better expression) candidate. Capuano may have been the closest thing to a populist firebrand in this race:

Coakley won nearly every municipality across the state, though narrowly trailed Capuano in the city of Boston. Capuano also carried the academic hubs of Cambridge and Amherst and his home base of Somerville.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30376.html

One piece of legislation that speaks to the goal of universal coverage is H.R. 676: the United States National Health Insurance Act. I am a co-sponsor of this legislation which would establish a national single-payer healthcare system.

http://www.house.gov/capuano/issues/mikeon_healthcare.shtml

I'd wait for the autopsy or the patient's demise before announcing the cause of death, but you can't really view the result as a referendum on health care unless you rule out local/state/regional (even national, non single payer pertaining) trends, any more than you could view Mel Martinez's election as a referendum on the Iraq War.

[SidDithers]

80. Will you admit how wrong you were...

if Dems keep the seat?

Sid

[FVZA_Colonel]

82. I just don't see that as the magic solution to their current problems.

I'd like to see it happen, but it is just not a "cure-all" that will restore public faith in Democratic governance.

[ncteechur]

93. the reason is that we have a weak dem candidate in a special election

just because Kennedy won doesn't mean shit. many Mass gov have been repub.

[itsrobert]

101. Ted Kennedy worked relentlessly and Coakley takes the holidays off?

Not a good way to honor the man. That was no time to go on vacation. If Coakley loses, she has herself to blame.

[bvar22]

102. LESS than 35% of ALL American voters....

...support Mandates to BUY Health Insurance WITHOUT a Public Option.

What do The Democrats expect to happen? :shrug:

This HCR Bill WILL be a bloodbath for the Working Class AND the Democratic Party.

[bobbolink]

114. Yeah but it will be blamed on us for being "disloyal".

:P

[Kaleva]

116. Ted would have won this election easily even if he had voted for the Senate health care bill.

[bridgit]

118. Naw, since Reagan; republicans have been working The Cicciolina Angle

Trying to find ever more ethereal, feather-light yet somehow appealing. malleable candidates


Able to tow the neo-republican tea party line


Voters respond because they are equally vacuous, and soon the in-roads are made, the deal is done and all without a single shot fired only brandished

[DonkeyHoTay]

119. Maybe the problem is this WSJ article on Ms Coakley. (uh, oh...)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

I had never even heard of this triple incident, the story of
the Amiraults' convictions.  It is shocking.

There must be some other side (Martha's?) that does not appear
in this article by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dorothy
Rabinowitz. Can someone on the board pplease come to Martha's
defense here?