Good Comments in NY Times re: The Coakley Catastrophe

[MannyGoldstein]

Massachusetts Race Tests Staying Power of Democrat

here's the most-recommended:

"Obama and the Democrats are in deep trouble, all right, but not because their agenda was too "ambitious." On the contrary, they were elected to fight for the middle class, and that is why many independents supported them. Instead, they have behaved like Republicans, constantly favoring the interests of the rich and well-connected (Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors, etc.) over the interests of Americans facing the loss of their jobs, homes, and savings. The health care bill has turned into a complete sellout to the insurance industry. Wall Street was bailed out, and is paying itself huge bonuses to celebrate, while more and more middle-class families are losing everything and sliding into poverty. Until the Democrats understand this, they will continue to lose and lose big. Their right wing -- all of the corporate-leaning "Democratic Leadership Council" types, "Blue Dogs," whatever you want to call them (and I have some unprintable suggestions) -- are leading the Democrats to electoral disaster and the country to ruin."

Right on! Looks like the readership of America's third-largest newspaper is at the political far-left fringe. :sarcasm:

[sabrina 1]

1. Shhhhh, we're not supposed to face reality here.

Everything is fine, vote the Blue Dogs back in because they are the 'lesser of two evils'. Donate to the DLC so that when they are in power they can tell you to STFU until the next election.

And, in case you didn't know, the only people crying because they didn't 'get a pony' are people on DU! :sarcasm: just in case.

If Republicans regain control of Congress, I will blame those who refuse to live in the real world and fail to grasp the fact that the American people are not stupid when it comes to their own interests.

friends don't let friends drive drunk

The Democratic Party's best friends are those who have been trying to warn them that unless they stop following a rightwing agenda, unless they start paying attention to what the American people in poll after poll have told them they want regarding Health Care reform, they will lose.

Party loyalists 'my party right or wrong' types, both left and right, are like drug addicts. When they fail, it is everyone else's fault.

A future Republican majority is guaranteed by these people. If it is to be averted, it will only be because the party itself will realize that it is not only DUers who are unhappy, and they will begin to start working for the people who elected them.

[villager]

2. +1

n/t

[duphase]

5. You might be right, but I'm not so sure about some of what you said

First of all, Ds are kind of like who is being referred to in quote: "Rich people kiss each other, poor people pee on each other."

Second, the majority of voters nearly always vote against their own economic interest.

Third, the D party knows exactly what they're doing. Obama began wooing nervous libs in his Mass. pep rally. That is only the beginning. He knows how important it is to win in 2010. That's the VERY reason why he "took care of those that brung him to the dance" early on. They've been catered to, and now it's time to woo the base. (not to be confused with al qaeda ... aka "the base" in Arabic)

[sabrina 1]

11. Well, I'm not sure I agree with all that you said.

Eg, I thought it was Democrats and Independents who 'brought him to the dance'.

As far as wooing liberals in Mass., that happened only because it finally dawned on someone that, contrary to what the DLC crowd has claimed all along, you cannot count on people to just keep voting against their best interests.

The catering I think you are referrring to, is to Wall St. the Private Insurance Industry and the MIC. On all three of these situations, the American people were overwhelming against the policies which showed little or no change from the status quo. They were not only ignored, but told to 'go away' and 'be quiet'.

The results of those policies will have a lasting effect on the lives of ordinary Americans. Right now we are seeing some of them which translate into joblessness for millions of Americans, resulting in millions of people losing their homes and there has been little if any pressure on the bailed out banks to start stepping up to the plate and start acting like American Citizens whose country is in need. Sending them strongly worded messages doesn't do it. Passing laws, laws that reign in the greed that got us here in the first place is how to make sure they don't do it again. And finding and prosecuting those who caused the collapse of the economy.

What, eg, is going to change about getting some accountability for the many crimes of the previous administration? I don't see any hope of that happening considering that we've told it won't.

On these and other issues, especially the Health Care reform legislation, liberals were completely shut out and it was blatant. Now, is it dawning on them what people were trying to tell them, that if you do that, people WILL find somewhere else to go?

I don't want to be 'wooed' by politicians. Words don't mean much, actions are what matter. And I don't buy 'we can't do it, we don't have the votes' or whatever other excuses we've heard.

If you want something you fight for it. So, the conclusion many have reached is since there's been little fighting on the part of Dems for a progressive agenda, they don't want it.

I'm just telling you what most people who are not on internet boards, or deeply involved in politics see. And that excuses won't win them over, or any more promises. What will do that is seeing actions that start to benefit the people rather than corporations.

The Party can listen or not. Their operatives can use all the talking points they've been using, none of that will change anyone's mind. What will is when people start seeing some respect for what they want and which they were promised. The electorate is fickle. Rahm, one of the worst ever advocates for a Dem. President, seems to think he can abuse the Democratic base and then count on them when needed. Nothing could be more stupid in terms of political strategy.

[snot]

3. K&R'd

[girl gone mad]

4. +1

[jpak]

6. And voting GOP will change all that rich-favoring stuff??? LOL!!!11

:rofl:

[SoCalDem]

7. That's what's so sad.. choosing between drowning & burning to death

Either way you're still dead..but hey.. you get a choice:(

[PuraVidaDreamin]

8. Sometimes things have to get really bad before people wake up.

There really is nothing here to laugh about.

[HughMoran]

20. Did 8 years of Bush didn't wake people up?

:shrug:

[last1standing]

26. Yes. It did wake them up. They voted for the guy who promised progressive policies.

It makes no sense to blame the voters for Obama's lies.

[NashVegas]

36. Sorry, I Disagree With That

Too many "progressives" were willfully misled.

[StreetKnowledge]

29. But at this rate, when we get to that point.....

.....there will be no real way to recover it.

If a Dem can lose in Massachusetts, that should be setting off great whacking alarm bells in the Dem camp. If they lose it, the first response from the White House should be Obama firing Rahm for the fact that his agenda is getting nowhere, and ordering Harry Reid replaced by somebody who has a pair of balls and a brain.

[girl gone mad]

9. The sad truth is that voting in Democratic majorities didn't help..

so now Democrats will get the brunt of the backlash against the plutocratic agenda. This cycle will repeat ad infinitum since both parties are now solidly in the pocket of Wall Street and our Oligarchical Collectivists.

[jpak]

10. If you cannot see the difference between Bush and Obama, or Harry and Mitch then...

:rofl:

[griffi94]

13. sure there are differences

and almost everyone here can see them. however the differences seem to be around the edges.
obama has done much more for wall street than main street.
this hcb is just another gift to the corporate ruling class.
the working middle class may get a bone thrown their way, but i'm not sure that's what they thought they were getting when the voted in 08.
sadly it seems that the democrats are a wholly owned subsidiary of wall street....same as the repubs.
like someone posted upthread, you have the choice of death by drowning or death by burning..either way you're still dead.

[jpak]

14. Done more for Wall Street than Main Street? - don't think so

Would the GOP extend MAIN STREET unemployment benefits and COBRA subsidies?

Nope

Would the GOP pass the Stimulus Bill which saved or created 0.6-1.6 million MAIN STREET JOBS - including MAIN STREET teachers and policemen?

Nope

Would the GOP have bailed out GM and Chrysler that saves a multitude of MAIN STREET UNION jobs?

Nope.

I don't knew where these stupid talking points come from, but they are not "reality based"...

[girl gone mad]

18. Do you really think the GOP would have let the auto companies go under?

I don't. Not for a minute.

I also think they would have voted for the stimulus. Bush did push for and get a huge stimulus in the form of tax rebate checks in 2008 and I have no doubt that whoever was in charge would have tried pumping hundreds of billions into the economy, one way or another. There is no reason to think otherwise. Only teabagger types honestly believe that Republicans are fiscally conservative. In reality, they have no problems creating as much debt as necessary to juice the economy and save their seats.

[jpak]

25. That is what they ACTUALLY said - McCain et. al - yessirree. NO AUTO BAILOUT

Bush's stimulus didn't work and was in no way similar to Obama's Stimulus - which did...GDP went from -6.4% to +2.2% and we had positive job growth in November 2009 for the first time in >2 years.

The CBO reported that Obama's Stimulus bill created or saved MORE jobs than anticipated 0.6-1.2 million jobs.

Apologize foe the GOP all you want - but if McCain and Palin were in charge we would be in a deep dark hole from which we might never have recovered.

Viva Obama!

VIVA!

[girl gone mad]

31. Nope. "McCain Now Supports Auto Industry Bailout: I’ll ‘Do Whatever I Think Needs To Be Done’ "

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/31/fiorina-mccain-auto-bailout/

Today, however, interviewed on Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) expressed support for the auto industry bailouts:

Q: We’re finding out that there may be a possibility of some sort of bail-out or government assistance for the auto industry. Would that be something that you would support?

MCCAIN: Well, we’ve already done that to $25 billion, and we’ve delayed getting them the money. I would do whatever I think needs to be done to help our automotive industry. We’ve got to make this transition to flex fuel, battery powered, hydrogen automobiles. And, obviously — and, also, I would provide tax credits for people who buy these new automobiles. We’ve got to keep this industry alive. There’s no doubt about that.

Republicans would not have let the auto companies fail. No way, no how. No President, (R) or (D) wants to be known as the one who let the auto companies die. Even my nutty Reublican sister admitted that much when she was calling Obama a "socialist" for the auto bailouts.

Republicans also would have passed a huge stimulus, which is why Teabaggers who try to claim that Republicans are fiscally conservative are full of crap. Politicians will do what is in their best self-interest.

Of course Bush's stimulus checks didn't work. "Money gift" type stimulus programs usually fail. Bush was getting advice from some of the worst economic advisors in history so I'm not surprised they went with that half-baked idea. It's impossible to make a direct comparison between Bush's stimulus and Obama's, however, because we were at different stages of the economic cycle in each case. I sincerely doubt that Obama's stimulus will do any lasting good, because in order for Keynesian-style government spending programs to be effective, two major things must be different than they are in our current economy. 1. Government spending needs to have been heavily curtailed during the boom years (precisely the opposite of what we did) and 2. the private sector needs to be in a position to take on more debt as govt. spending wanes (our private sector is well beyond its debt saturation level).

I really don't mind frittering away time discussing economic matters, but accusing me of being a Republican is a cheap tactic that suggests you lack the intellect to carry on a realistic conversation.

[jpak]

34. Your McCain Apology is duly noted - he was against it before he was for it -lol

as for the rest of the crew...

Auto Bailout Prospects Sour as Top Republicans Oppose Measure

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amQgpKqvQmb4&refer=home

ov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- A $25 billion bailout for automakers faces opposition from Republican leaders in Congress, complicating prospects for its approval in coming weeks.

House Republican leader John Boehner, Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, and Alabama Representative Spencer Bachus, have all criticized aspects of the aid package being crafted by Democrats in the House and Senate.

``I don't know of a single Republican who is willing to support'' the auto bailout, Democrat Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said yesterday, adding that he would be careful about bringing up any measure that might fail.

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC would receive $25 billion in loans out of a $700 billion financial bailout package approved earlier this year under the legislation, which Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan are writing. The Bush administration opposes using those funds for the auto companies.

<more>

[griffi94]

23. i wish they were just talking points

when my wife lost her job cobra extension didn't mean squat as we didn't have the money for it.
as of right now we've both been seriously underemployed for the last 3 years...i don't qualify for a bailout as i'm a construction worker and not a ceo.
the jobs summit obama put together may do some good at some point....so far not so much.
i have a house that i bought 11 years ago. normal mortgage not the subprime kind. still have fallen behind on the payments twice and just by skin of my teeth managed an 11th hour miracle to stave off foreclosure. i had at one time a little nest egg. cash and some assets in a retriement account the first wallstreet meltdown took care of most of that. i also have 4 kids under the age of 18 with 2 of them being special needs kids. so it's not like i can tighten my belt much where they're concerned.
to tell you the truth things are just about the same for me as they were the last 4 years of dubya.
so i find it amusing when someone starts the old "he's better than mcain" i think he is better than mccain would have been, but he's still not what he sold himself as. i notice wallstreet got the money they needed and as far bailing out the auto industry didn't the auto workers take a major screwing as part of that.
one thing i can promise you there are more people in my position than you might think, and most of them don't dig very deep into politics, they just know they've been struggling and are continuing to struggle with no end in sight. they thought they were voting for change, so far it looks just about the same.

[girl gone mad]

15. It doesn't matter what I see.

I'm a staunch progressive and I'll always vote for the most progressive option.

What's relevant here is what the average middle class voter sees. At the moment, they see Wall St. getting trillions in bailouts as job losses continue to mount. They see mandated corporate health insurance for themselves and their children. They see wars that don't end, no matter who is in office. They see no compelling reason to vote for Democrats and one good reason to vote for Republicans (to stop the health reform bill).

That is the reality of the current political mood in America.

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. What possible good is going to come out of voting for trojan horse brown?

[LostInAnomie]

17. It will spite the shit out of a bunch of people's faces.

[The_Casual_Observer]

19. Sure like 2000. They really showed the DLC alright!

[LostInAnomie]

21. Now you're getting it.

I bet the pile of cut off noses over that one is mountainous.

[LostInAnomie]

16. Anyone that stays home or votes for Brown is a fucking moron.

You want to see absolutely nothing get done? You want the lesson Senate Dems take to be Progressives cannot be counted on? You want to completely scare politicians away from ever taking up health care reform again? You want to give spineless Dem leadership a built in excuse to never accomplish anything? Side with the fucking morons and give the Repukes a 41st seat.

[HughMoran]

22. & if it's posted on another site than DU, then it must be true!

It's an opinion, we all have one.

[sabrina 1]

27. What is your solution to get people excited enough

to go out and vote for Democrats next November? If the OP was just one opinion, there would be nothing to worry about. Clearly the Dem. Party is worried even if you're not.

Sitting around slamming people on the internet because you don't want to recognize the reality of what is happening, is not a solution to getting Democrats elected in November.

Other than blaming DUers (if only we had that much power) for the possible failure of Dems to attract enough voters to keep their majority, what actual, realistic solution do you have to persuade voters that Dems are going to work for them after next November? Because clearly independents and many Democrats right now do not believe that, whether you want to admit it or not.

[QC]

24. Quick! Look! Over here!

[spanone]

28. healthcare is a pretty ambitious agenda imo

[coti]

30. This is correct. It's the difference between populism and corporatism. nt

[invictus]

32. K&R

[Mari333]

33. knr

[NashVegas]

35. NY Times? Please. Everyone Knows That's a Liberal Rag

[TomCADem]

37. Umm, The Gist Of The Article Is That President Obama Is Too Liberal

Citing one comment in response to that article is not exactly representative or the NY Times' readership. Also, a Coakley loss will be used by conservadems like Bayh to say that President Obama needs to be more conservative, not less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/us/politics/17massachusetts.html

Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said the atmosphere was a serious threat to Democrats. “I do think there’s a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate,” Mr. Bayh said. “I don’t think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there’s a perception that that is what they are getting.”

Ms. Coakley, the state attorney general, could still defeat her Republican opponent, State Senator Scott Brown. Polls show the race as very close, and measuring public opinion in special elections is always difficult.

Support for the health care overhaul could grow if it is enacted into law and Americans decide that it has left them better off, as Mr. Obama says will happen. The economy could take a turn for the better by this summer, validating Mr. Obama’s policies in time to influence the midterm elections. And for all the national forces at play here, Ms. Coakley has, in the view of most Democrats, made things worse with a slow-starting and low-energy campaign marked by several high-profile errors.

Still, Mr. Obama’s decision to tear up his weekend schedule to come here reflects concern in the White House that a defeat of Ms. Coakley would be seen as a repudiation of the president’s first year. It would also raise the question of whether Mr. Obama squandered political capital by focusing so much on health care at a time of rising unemployment.

“If it works well, it was a good thing to do for the country here,” Mr. Bayh said. “But there’s definitely an opportunity cost. You could only spend political capital once; it now can’t be spent on other things.”