If you lie down with insurance company dogs, you get fleas....and lose elections.

[Nikki Stone1]

That's the message behind Coakley and Vic Snyder.

You can unrec me, you can yell profanities at me, you can accuse me of hating the President, of being disloyal or "secretly" conservative, but you CANNOT get away from this. Many Americans have looked at this health insurance bill and realize it is a giveaway of their shrinking salaries to Wall Street, like the "bailout." And like the "bailout", there are NO conditions on the Wall Street companies, the finance and insurance industries. There's just more and more subsidizing of these wealthy companies by the working and middle classes.

And some of us are sick and fucking tired of corporate welfare.

[Nikki Stone1]

1. Dupe deleted.

/

[ProSense]

2. Coakley lost?

Looks like Snyder has his hands full:

“2010 will be a robust election year during which great forces collide to set the direction for our country for another two years,” Mr. Snyder, 62, said in a statement. “I have concluded that these election-year forces are no match for the persuasive and powerful attraction of our three one-year old boys under the leadership of their three-year old brother, and I have decided not to run for re-election.”

Some people are just going to continue to be bitter. Helping Republicans get an edge does nothing for me.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. She's behind in a state where she shouldn't be

And you can link to talking points all you want--as you are wont to do--but that won't change the truth. You were wrong about the economy, even though you argued with Allentown Jake until you were blue in the face. All the recent economic news supports everything he had to say.

[ProSense]

Who says she's behind?

Obama and McCain were in a dead heat in PA, too.

[11 Bravo]

8. FoxNews says so. They wouldn't lie, would they?

Surely making it appear close enough to plausibly steal couldn't enter into the calculation, could it?

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Click on the link in the OP.

:rofl:

[ProSense]

15. Did. It's a bogus poll.

There are polls showing her up to 17 points ahead.

So who says she's behind?

[Nikki Stone1]

16. The poll is real. Yours, as usual, the bogus ones.

But don't let me stop you.

:rofl:

[ProSense]

22. Oh, keep fantasizing

you have a few more days.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. The Boston Globe: "Race is in a spinout":

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/15/race_is_in_a_spinout/

Martha Coakley made a jaw-dropping declaration earlier this week at the only live televised debate in Boston that she has deigned to do. She said, and I quote, “I’ve traveled the state and met tremendous people.’’

If she did, it was under the cover of darkness, with an assumed name.

Because if she had really traveled the state, if she had taken the time to meet voters, Coakley wouldn’t be in the position she finds herself in now, heading into the final weekend of this special election campaign in a perilously close race against a GOP state legislator nobody had heard of a mere six months ago.

Back in December, Coakley beat her closest opponent by 19 points in a primary in which she got stronger by the day. She strolled into the general election with high name recognition, strong favorability ratings, and as the Democratic candidate in a state that hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972. It looked as if it would be impossible to lose.

So what did she do? Apparently, she’s tried to accomplish the impossible.....

[barb162]

32. According to that article

she's blowing the race all on her own; not meeting with voters, etc.
I'm not in that state and have not been following her campaign so I can't tell.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

33. This post doesn't say anything about her losing the election because of

health care reform or insurance companies...???

[Nikki Stone1]

25. "Prominent Democrats in Boston are privately seething at the candidate and her campaign."

Prominent Democrats in Boston are privately seething at the candidate and her campaign. First and foremost, they see the immediate impact defeat could have on the health care overhaul. Beyond that, they fret about the seismic impact a Republican victory in Massachusetts would have on Obama’s national standing. And they are nearly despondent about what a defeat would mean to Ted Kennedy’s legacy and memory.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/15/race_is_in_a_spinout/

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

34. This post doesn't say anything about her losing the election because of

health care reform or insurance companies...???

[Nikki Stone1]

26. "Coakley underestimated Scott Brown in Mass. Senate race"

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/coakley_underes.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed2

"With Democrats around the country now panicked about a neck-and-neck race with Republican Scott Brown, Coakley's campaign has suddenly been forced to tear up that strategy. She has pivoted into attack mode, targeting Brown and his record in TV ads, at events, and in news releases and interviews. She has expanded her presence on the campaign trail. And she has called in national Democrats to bail her out.

''They should have been prepared for this,'' said Michael Shea, a Democratic media strategist who worked for US Representative Michael Capuano, whom Coakley beat in the primary. ''You don't let someone creep up on you like he has.''

So what happened?

Insiders in the Coakley campaign -- none of whom would agree to talk strategy for the record -- say they were convinced that Brown faced too many hurdles to be a viable challenger in the race to replace Edward M. Kennedy. His political profile signaled no threat. They felt he was too conservative for Massachusetts, and that his legislative career had been unremarkable.

Some in Coakley's inner circle say it was mere complacency. One adviser said the early strategy also fit Coakley's personality -- she is not a natural campaigner, she does not like to grandstand, and she is averse to stirring up controversy, the adviser said. The campaign's approach in the immediate post-primary days was to focus on Coakley's strengths -- broad state-wide recognition, and high favorable ratings among voters -- and ride the momentum off her landslide victory in the four-way primary race....."

[ProSense]

27. Like I said, keep fantasizing n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

30. Then I guess the Boston Herald is fantasizing too! ROFL!!!!!

:rofl:

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

36. The Herald is a Murdoch rag.

I agree with you - I bet they are fantasizing!

[Nikki Stone1]

40. And

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7477510

[Nikki Stone1]

53. Is the Boston Globe also a Murdoch rag?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/16/obama_steps_into_suddenly_taut_senate_race/

Obama steps into suddenly taut Senate race

"With the latest poll showing Scott Brown nosing ahead of Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee yesterday called on the head of her party, President Obama, to help her win Tuesday in a race once considered a sure thing for Coakley.

Obama will visit the Bay State tomorrow to provide Coakley with a jolt in a contest Democrats view with new urgency. The president’s trip - on the heels of a pair of Coakley rallies with former President Bill Clinton yesterday - signifies the seriousness with which national Democrats view the possibility of a Brown victory...."

[Nikki Stone1]

54. And how about that "Murdoch rag" the NEW YORK TIMES? (which DOES link the health insurance bill)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/us/politics/16dems.html

Narrow Senate Race Unnerves Democrats on Health Care

By CARL HULSE
Published: January 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — With their party’s candidate struggling in Massachusetts in a race for what should be the safest of Senate seats, Congressional Democrats are growing increasingly unnerved about the political consequences of the health care overhaul even as their leadership closes in on a final agreement.

Many Democrats say they still believe the best course is to forge ahead and enact sweeping health care changes, allowing them to claim the party has conquered a domestic issue that has long defied a legislative resolution.

But they also say the health fight has dragged on for far too long, denying Democrats the opportunity to concentrate on issues that are foremost in the minds of many Americans, jobs and the health of the economy.

Now the prospect of Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts losing on Tuesday in the special election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy — the longtime champion of a health care overhaul — is intensifying anxiety among Democrats who were already worried about the 2010 midterm election environment....

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

35. Nothing here about health care, either. n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

52. But here there is:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/21/mandates_dont_lower_costs.php

Mandates Don't Lower Costs
January 21, 2008
MANDATES DON'T LOWER COSTS

Massachusetts Officials Concede Mandates Don't Lead To Universal Coverage. "Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies...acknowledged that their universal coverage plan is not likely to be universal anytime soon. 'There's good evidence,' Mr. Kingsdale said, 'whether it's buying auto insurance or wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets, that mandates don't work 100 percent.'"

One In Five Uninsured In Massachusetts Will Be Exempt From The Mandate, Individual Mandate Would Only Apply To "Those Who Can Afford The Premiums." The Boston Globe reported, "Interestingly, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the bureaucrats in charge of implementing the plan, decided that the universal individual mandate does not apply to everyone, but rather only those who can afford the premiums. Therefore, nearly one in five of the currently uninsured will be exempt from the law."

[Nikki Stone1]

97. Apparently others are fantasizing on DU too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x12776

[treestar]

60. Polls for this are apparently difficult to do, too

I'm getting that impression.

It's one thing for the every 4 year Presidential race but another matter for a race to replace a deceased Senator. It may not be possible to be as accurate.

[bvar22]

68. Clinton and Obama wouyldn't be racing to Mass.....

...in a last minute panic IF Coakley were 17 points ahead.
.
.
.
Really.

[Nikki Stone1]

75. They're panicked

.

[Junkdrawer]

3. And the crazy part is that, thanks to our two party system....

the country will bite off its nose to spite its face.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. Are you suggesting a third party? or fourth? We have them, we just don't use them.

Maybe it's time, I don't know. But if Obama staffers look at this board, ever, they need to see that they are way off their own base on this.

[Junkdrawer]

11. That's a verboten subject on DU. n/t

[Mari333]

6. knr

[L0oniX]

7. K & R

[tbyg52]

9. Amen.

:patriot:

[Nikki Stone1]

21. @--->------

.

[aaronbav]

12. K&R!!!!!

[StarfarerBill]

13. K&R

[Nikki Stone1]

124. @--->------

.

[Tim01]

14. k&r

[amborin]

17. K&R

[havocmom]

18. The DLC WANTS to lose seats

They don't want a majority. Giving them a majority = we expect some fucking relief for the lesser economic brackets. They don't want to do that.

51 wasn't enough, can't do anything with that.. give them 60 and we get fucked harder. They need the excuse of 'we don't have the votes' so they WANT to lose seats.

Same with the GOP. It's the circus, it is not governance. Somebody else is doing the governing. Congress/Senate is just part of the diversion.

If someone is running as an incumbant DEM, with few exceptions, they need to be primaried. We need real DEMS, not the farce we are seeing.

[tbyg52]

29. +1

It's too bad when our own "party" is us against them.

[laughingliberal]

45. It does appear that way

And I said as much when I called the White House about the constant liberal bashing coming out of there. I have noticed a few liberal noises coming out of there the past week and Rahm strangely silent, lately. Maybe they did not realize the bill might not be passes before this seat goes down.

[Nikki Stone1]

99. I think they were planning on having it done before Christmas

But the House got bogged down until September and the Senate played its own games.

[Atticus]

19. No, see---you've got it all wrong!

Just 'tween us, they got this POWDER, see, and come what may---it's got to be kept DRY!

Have you heard this---------?

[Nikki Stone1]

20. Damned powder.

:grr:

[laughingliberal]

46. Lol! They should have about enough dry powder now to make it through a few years. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

55. If Obama had just concentrated on fixing the economy and getting loans out to small businesses

which create most of the new jobs in this country right now, he'd be a frigging hero and no one could stop him. Giving away money to the insurance industry, after giving money to AIG and Goldman Sachs, did not do him one damned bit of good. Nor us.

[Luciferous]

23. Yep, and I'm sure we will see a lot more of this happening in the

upcoming elections. People voted for change and they aren't getting it, so why not vote for the other team, or stay home and not vote at all? I'm sure a lot of people feel that way...

[Nikki Stone1]

100. The Democrats need to start acting like Democrats and not

GOP lite.

[WillyT]

28. K & R !!!

:kick:

[SidDithers]

31. Bookmarking...

we'll see how right or wrong you were on Wednesday.

Sid

[Nikki Stone1]

105. Duplicate

Edit.

[Nikki Stone1]

106. The election isn't the issue: it's how close it is.

We don't need the election to happen to see the damage that has already happened. I do hope she pulls it out, but quite frankly, Obama needs to take this as a warning for November. They're not going to be able to pull out everyone. Reinstate the public option and he makes it easier for Dems to hold onto Congressional seats.

[dave29]

37. Congratulations

[waiting for hope]

38. K&R

I know I'm tired of it - their obfuscation of the issue has become so transparent, and not in the way they want transparency. How can anyone defend the pandering by everyone on the Hill to the Health Insurance Lobby? Since when has a collective group who has spent millions done anything that was for the common good over their bottom line profit?

[WT Fuheck]

39. Obama and democrats have not only gotten fleas,

they've screwn the pooch

[bobbolink]

41. The polls on Obama back you up.

Of course, that doesn't matter to the cheerleaders, and we wouldn't want to ruin their attacking fun, now, would we?

It also doesn't matter to Obama.

So, why should it matter to us?

[Nikki Stone1]

42. Coakley is in trouble.

And if a naked guy wins over her, health insurance is the culprit.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

44. If you keep repeating something over and over

does it become true?

[Nikki Stone1]

51. You tell me. Does calling a giveaway to the health insurance industry "healthcare reform" over and

over make it real reform?

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

58. No, it doesn't.

But you were repeating the "Coakley is losing because of Health Care Reform" meme. Even right-leaning polls show that 65% of Massachusetts Democrats support the HCR bill http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Even-in-Massachusetts-weak-support-for-Dem-health-care-bill-81112097.html.

[Nikki Stone1]

63. Read the NY Times article: Her challenger is using the health insurance giveaways

to pound her on the campaign trail, and it is working. Many MA residents understand that the health insurance giveaway bill will not only take hard-earned money and give it to the insurance industry but will increase their taxes. The so-called Cadillac tax has been delayed for unions (thanks to a deal) but goes for everyone else. The GOP can legitimately call this a middle class tax increase and use it to bash Coakley, which they are doing.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

81. Actually, the Brown ads are focusing

on the death panels/old people will lose Medicare/ government will decide what doctor you can use angle. Nothing about the giveaways.

[Nikki Stone1]

91. Are you in Massachusetts then?

?

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

103. Yup.

I went to a rally for Martha tonight. Doing phone banking and working the polls on Tuesday. The plan for tomorrow is to call friends and relatives to ask them to vote for Martha.

[Nikki Stone1]

107. Well, good luck, then.

Sometimes, when you're in the middle of things, you can't see too clearly. I did a hell of a lot of activist work for years in California, and it wouldn't be until later when I realized what a disconnect there was between the activists and the rest of the voters. Coakely was in an easy seat and should not be behind to such a radical right winger (who posed naked, no less) at this point in the election. Obama needs to take this as a warning: reinstate the public option and make it easier to hold onto the House, or suffer the consequences.

[scheming daemons]

43. The end result will be a MORE conservative Democratic party

You're too clueless to get that.

[DisgustedInMN]

50. More conservative, you say?

Could you please explain to me why I should remain in a political party who's reaction to my being disillusioned by their lack ability to further the agenda We the People elected them to do, is to threaten me that they will move even further away from the goals important to me?

Thanks, I'll hold my breath waiting for your rational explanation.

[Nikki Stone1]

56. +1

.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

61. I will see if I can help explain.

So, let's say Brown wins. Democrats will look at that and say, "The more conservative candidate beat our candidate. So, if we want to win more elections we need to appeal to more people on the right. So let's move the platform to the right and then we can win again."

I don't think they are going to say that we should move more to the left to capture more votes on the right.

[Nikki Stone1]

65. No need to explain. We got your sports team logic a long time ago.

What we don't have is a real health plan: we just a giveaway to insurance companies. And no amount of waving your pom-poms is going to change that.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

79. I don't have any pom-poms.

I just believe the incremental approach is the only one that is going to get us where YOU and I both want health care to be in this country. Our disagreement isn't about where we want to get to. It is about the best route to get there.

[Nikki Stone1]

84. The health insurance giveaway is not incremental in the least.

It's an entire transfer of wealth--the wealth of every American--to the health insurance industry. Incremental would be if they started with small subsidies for people who wanted to buy private health insurance and couldn't. That's not what they are doing: they are creating an entire new infrastructure that serves the health insurance companies. If you're a true incrementalist, you should HATE this bill.

[DisgustedInMN]

66. Sorry..

.. doesn't explain jack about why I should remain loyal to a party that isn't loyal to me. It's not a trick question. I REALLY don't understand why the Democratic Party is cutting it's own throat.

[Wardoc]

72. So if we don't accept getting bent over, we are going to get bent over? Super.

[Nikki Stone1]

87. That's pretty much the size of it.

.

[laughingliberal]

47. K & R nt

[Nikki Stone1]

120. @--->------ @--->------

..

[invictus]

48. K&R

[golddigger]

49. K&R

[shopgreen]

86. Hi golddigger. Nice to see you post.

[Nikki Stone1]

93. .

.

[SanchoPanza]

57. Or

"Many Americans have looked at this health insurance bill and realize it is a giveaway of their shrinking salaries to Wall Street, like the "bailout." And like the "bailout", there are NO conditions on the Wall Street companies, the finance and insurance industries. "

Any American who has read the bill and made that conclusion is an idiot. Any Democrat or Democratic-leaning registered voter in Massachusetts who decides to stay home on Tuesday because they think it'll prove something, besides that they're an idiot, is an idiot.

And being an idiot is far worse than hating the President, being disloyal, or "secretly" conservative.

[Nikki Stone1]

123. And why would someone making that conclusion be

"an idiot"?

Come on, now, I'm sure you've got a brilliant explanation. :)

[SanchoPanza]

126. I likely do.

But I've yet to hear how the bill amounts to a massive giveaway to insurance companies.

The only argument I've seen is the mandate. An argument that isn't so much idiotic as it is myopic. Yes, you will pay a 2% additional tax on your adjusted income (or $750, whichever is greater) if you don't buy health insurance. But you'll also have a better regulated marketplace in which to buy it, increasing the quality of insurance while reducing its cost. And if you have a big problem with giving money to for-profit insurers, that new marketplace will include non-profit options.

Not to mention that the mandate itself is practically toothless. I've seen very few people mention the fact that the government is prohibited from penalizing anyone that doesn't pay it.

[Nikki Stone1]

127. Nonsense.

The government can fine anyone who doesn't pay for health insurance. It's built into the law. The only parts of this law that have real teeth are those that are related to the little guy.

You can defend this thing all you want, but the mandate is what the insurers want; it will make us all a captive market.

[SanchoPanza]

128. Here's what's "built in to the law".

(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.

[treestar]

59. You need at least to point to some poll proving this

The bulk of the American electorate is not "progressive" as defined on DU. Heck, many of them are against government help at all.

[Bobbie Jo]

62. If you lie down with teabaggers, you get Palin.

Brilliant.

[Nikki Stone1]

64. This isn't sports. It's not "my team vs your team." It's about what's right for Americans

...

[Bobbie Jo]

67. OT... why is your profile blocked? Just curious.

This question was posed to another DU'er the other day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7463594&mesg_id=7466855

You brought up the "team" analogy, just thought I'd ask. :shrug:

[Nikki Stone1]

74. I didn't know it was. And your point is?

?

[Bobbie Jo]

77. It is, indeed.

Like I said...just curious.

Thanks.

On edit: I included the link for context.

[Nikki Stone1]

78. Well, your curiosity has been satisfied now.

I have no idea what the link is to or what it has to do with me.

[Bobbie Jo]

80. Of course.

:rofl:

[Nikki Stone1]

82. Not sure what you're saying here

I appreciate knowing.

[Nikki Stone1]

94. Still waiting to hear from you...

:)

[Bobbie Jo]

104. I'm still waiting as well...

Preferences-unblock, etc...

[Nikki Stone1]

108. You first: what are you trying to imply?

And be very careful, because certain things are against DU rules. Blocking one's profile is not one of them.

[Bobbie Jo]

112. Oh dear... is that a threat?

By all means...hide away! :)

Then, of course you "didn't know" it was blocked, right? :rofl:

[Nikki Stone1]

113. Not at all, just a reminder.

And you sound an awful lot like someone I know. :)

[Bobbie Jo]

114. Mine isn't blocked ...

I have nothing to hide :)

This is my last response to you, because I'm tired of kicking your thread, and my phone is almost zapped. I'll respond to pm's, that us of course unless you have that blocked as well.

[Nikki Stone1]

115. You've discovered my evil plan!

Yeah, it's all been about getting you to kick my thread. :evilgrin:

Thanks by the way. You've been a real help. :hi:

[Bobbie Jo]

69. .

...

[Nikki Stone1]

98. And you.

:)

[Bobbie Jo]

102. and me, what?

[Nikki Stone1]

109. And you.

:)

[Nikki Stone1]

116. Pro.

:)

[Bobbie Jo]

117. Con.

[Nikki Stone1]

118. Pro.

:rofl:

[earth mom]

70. They think people are stupid and they think they can shout the truth down

whenever it makes Obama look bad.

Sorry, it ain't working, people are smarter than that.

[graywarrior]

71. Maybe you should wait til she actually loses.

Or wins.

[Nikki Stone1]

76. Just the fact that an easy win has become a panic situation says a lot about the health insurance

giveaway. Whether she wins or loses, there is already a crisis of confidence.

[ecstatic]

89. Her poll numbers have nothing to do with Obama or the insurance bill

Democrats have always been a wishy washy voting block. Single payer could be at stake and there would still be low turnout. Americans do not care.

[Nikki Stone1]

90. This was a safe seat; the common wisdom was that contest was in the primary

and the Dem would win. But the GOP got their foothold thanks to tax and deficit issues, the biggest being the health insurance giveaway.

[amborin]

95. they do, too, care; and look at this Coakely Pharma & Health Ins fundraiser:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/15-10

[Nikki Stone1]

96. Yes. Big Pharma has been pouring money into her campaign.

.

[Vidar]

73. K&R.

[Nikki Stone1]

125. Me too

..

[CoffeeCat]

83. You are SPOT ON!

Many people, like myself, are asking---what difference does our vote even MAKE?

If we've got elected officials who are bribed by the corporations--and voting at the behest of
those corporations and ignoring their constituents--what does my vote even MEAN????

That means I'm paying to keep corrupt asshats in power--corrupt asshats who could
care less about this country or about the fact that they have perverted our democracy
and turned it into a payola scam.

That's what I'm asking myself right now---why even bother?????

[Nikki Stone1]

111. What Obama needs to do NOW is reinstate the Public Option: he can save House seats that way

Otherwise, the left is not going to push to make that extra effort. And with the Independents slowly being pulled away, Dems will NEED the left.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

85. K&R

[Nikki Stone1]

119. Thanks

.

[ecstatic]

88. good luck

[Fire1]

92. +1

[emsimon33]

101. Dean said it best, "The base is demoralized." Rahm is just plain wrong.

We voted for change and got more of the same.

[Nikki Stone1]

110. Rahm needs to start being a DEMOCRAT and not a neocon in donkey skin

Reinstate the public option and SAVE the House seats.

[emsimon33]

129. Huh! Rahm is a Democrat???!!! Could have fooled me.

I thought he was the bitch-boy of corporate CEOs.

Democrat, you say????? Now that's a surprise! Couldn't tell it from anything he has ever done.

[lib2DaBone]

121. Just amazing.. how they think they can abandon their base and expect different?

[Nikki Stone1]

122. We are not their base anymore, we are just votes to be manipulated.

They pander each election cycle and then throw us back in the pond until they need us again. It's a political catch and release program.