Fire Dog Lake: AFL-CIO Poll: Union Members Voted for Brown over Coakley in “Working Class Revolt”

[Omaha Steve]

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2010/01/22/afl-cio-poll-union-members-voted-for-brown-over-coakley-in-working-class-revolt/

By: Michael Whitney Friday January 22, 2010 11:34 am

A post-election poll by the AFL-CIO shows that more Massachusetts union members voted for Republican Scott Brown than Democrat Martha Coakley in what the labor federation dubs a “working class revolt.” Union voters, concluded the AFL-CIO, are dissatisfied at the slow pace of change and perceive Obama and Congress as doing too little to help the middle class.

Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate race was lifted by strong support from union households, in a sign of trouble for President Barack Obama and Democrats who are counting on union support in the 2010 midterm elections.

A poll conducted on behalf of the AFL-CIO found that 49% of Massachusetts union households supported Mr. Brown in Tuesday’s voting, while 46% supported Democrat Martha Coakley. The poll conducted by Hart Research Associates surveyed 810 voters.

Let’s pull that out to be as clear as we can. Margin by which union members voted in MA-Sen on Tuesday:

Scott Brown: 49%
Martha Coakley: 46%

Ouch.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X1ii9uWnJI&feature=player_embedded

Tula Connell wrote over at the front page of FDL yesterday about some of the other issues hit on by the poll, including the fact that voters across the board want to see more change, invalidating baseless concerns of “overreach” and calls to “move to the center.”

In fact, voters were not worried about Democratic “overreach”—47 percent said their bigger concern about Democrats is that they haven’t succeeded in making needed change rather than tried to make too many changes too quickly (32 percent). Even voters for Scott Brown were more concerned about a lack of change (50 percent) than about trying to make too many changes too quickly (43 percent).

These results puts a lie to the corporate media spin that Democrats have gone “too far” in pushing a reform agenda. <...>

Our polling results show the election was not an endorsement of a Republican agenda or a call to abandon health care reform. Voters strongly disapprove of the job being done by congressional Republicans (26 percent approve and 58 percent disapprove), a much lower rating than they give to congressional Democrats (37 percent approve and 51 percent disapprove).

FULL story at link.

[joeybee12]

1. Pretty phucking obvious message these voters sent...

...and the Dumb-ocrats still don't get it.

[KittyWampus]

2. keep flogging that hobbyhorse. The FACT is Coakley was liberal, she just DID NOT CAMPAIGN.

And the little she did do was exactly what a sane candidate who wants to win should not do.

[dkf]

8. Oh please.

The Cadillac tax was a direct assault on union workers. You levy a 40% tax on someone and they WILL revolt. It makes me laugh to think you all believe it's just because she didn't campaign.

[flyarm]

13. yawn..not that we lifelong union members warned about the excise tax..

and the likes of people like you continued to post your propaganda!

We warned you..for many months..and you kept putting your fingers in your ears along with team Obama and kept singing ..lalalalalalalala!!

Its amazing when your propaganda gets shoved up your..well you know..don't you!

[Me.]

28. Precisely

Firefighters, for one group, couldn't have been ,ore clear.

[newspeak]

33. yeah, but Brown is going to be the gift that keeps on giving

I would have stayed hope instead of voting for him--I am against the Health insurance bill--but wait what else the repukes have planned. Like he's going to be pro-union, pro-labor. Yeah, right. The union's one issue vote, is going to cost them in the long run.

[ddeclue]

39. NO it's going to help them in the long run by enforcing some God damned party discipline to liberal

principles.

[Arkana]

73. You know, Coakley's campaign is the principal reason why she lost,

but people like you who insist on "TEACHING THOSE DISLOYAL FOOLS A LESSON" are rubbing salt in the wound.

[Cosmocat]

131. Yeah, OK ...

ever hear of the dogs and cats anology to Rs and Ds ...

Rs have more "party discipline" than an attack dog ...

Ds, NO SUCH THING, never going to happen ...

Anyone voting along these lines of thought simply flipped 1 of 100 seats in the most powerful governmental body (outside of the SC) in the land from one that would strongly consider union positions to one that will SURELY VOTE AGAINST union interests ...

[riverdale]

99. And Obama is pro-union exactly how?

Unions don't have a party in their corner at all.

[iceman66]

35. Yeah, you're really teaching the Democrats a lesson

by electing a candidate who is much, much more anti-union.

Idiots.

[ddeclue]

38. Actually they ARE teaching Obama and the DLC a lesson - take us seriously or lose.

[iceman66]

They are only hurting themselves.

Another Republican administration might spell the end of the labor movement altogether. That would be so much better than Obama is doing now, right?

[SOS]

164. When an individual is suffering from a headache

He should hit himself in the head with a hammer until he loses consciousness.
No more headache!

[Leopolds Ghost]

169. "What do you mean 'they', iceman?"

And if you don't know what that's a reference to, it's an old Indian joke.

Lone Ranger: We're being overrun by Indians!

Tonto: What do you mean 'we', white man?

In this case, who is this "they" you speak so poorly of.

[iceman66]

190. "They" = any union member who votes Republican.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[alstephenson]

58. Unfortunately we ALL lose.

Thanks for the lesson...

[Romulox]

50. By the same token, the establishment dems aren't playing "good cop/bad cop" too well atm...

Or, in other words, it takes two to tango. :hi:

[laughingliberal]

64. Plenty of idiots to go around in this

Like the ones who refused to listen to a public hugely in support of having a public option in the HCR bill and a major constituency of the party against the excise tax. I wouldn't have stayed home or voted for Brown but, as I keep trying to point out, DU members are not the general makeup of Democratic voters. We piss off our friends at our peril.

[iceman66]

71. The problem with this behavior

is that union members voting Republican is just going to encourage Democratic politicians to act MORE like Republicans, not less.

Need I remind you that the 'Cadillac tax' was initially a REPUBLICAN idea that the Senate Democrats unwisely adopted.

[laughingliberal]

90. Well, I'm not the one you need to convince

And yeah, the excise tax on benefits had goals quite similar to Bush's 'ownership society' BS that wanted to force people to forgo accessing services.

I and other DUers are not the problem here. And unless the traditional Democratic constituencies believe the Democrats are working for them, we're fucked.

[mmonk]

186. I don't get it. We vote for them and they act like republicans.

So we vote against them and they act like republicans. Catch 22.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

109. They will continue to put their fingers in their ears until everyone disappears

and they are the only ones left to vote for ineffectual Dems.

[ddeclue]

36. READ the OP.. Their vote was a protest vote against OBAMA. It didn't matter what SHE was.

[Toasterlad]

189. I Wonder What Your Excuse Will Be In November?

[Oceansaway]

3. no public option means no union support....

i feel the same way....we've been had....

no jobs means no union support.....

saving wallstreet and not mainstreet means no union support....

[iceman66]

37. There was only one pro-wall street candidate in this race.

His name was Scott Brown.

[flyarm]

111. and there was one candidate in the pockets of the health care industry corporate fuckers,

so spare us the wall street bs..Coakly took big bucks from the very people that want to fuck the union people and their insurance policies!

And Obama has surrounded his administration with Goldman boys..ahhh yes the very wall street corp that made the biggest profit this past year..with the money from the working Americans tax dollars!

please you act like people are fucking stupid..we are not.

[iceman66]

117. That is about the most idiotic post I've ever seen.

You ARE stupid if you think Coakley was out to "fuck the union people" and Brown was there to save you.

Brown and his ilk would get rid of unions altogether if they could get away with it.

But don't take my word for it. I have a feeling you'll find out soon enough.

[flyarm]

122. OH REALLY? do you think the union folks don't know this ..i found it on AFL-CIO message board!

Coakley in trouble? Pharma and HMO lobbyists to the rescue
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
01/09/10 1:55 PM EST

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley speaks during a news conference at her campaign headquarters in Charlestown, Mass. Monday, Jan. 11, 2010. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)
With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is here.
Of the 22 names on the host committee--meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley--17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there's also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.
All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley's host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway...

JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW..DOESN'T MEAN THE UNION FOLKS DON'T!

[iceman66]

130. OK, you have some issues with the health care bill. i get that.

It doesn't mean you should ignore the larger picture.

Overall, it was pretty obvious what candidate in MA would have been a better friend to organized labor, and it certainly was not Scott Brown.

Can you name even ONE Republican senator who is even remotely pro-union? I didn't think so.

Brown made it pretty clear that he is going to vote the same way as the rest of them.

Frankly, after the Reagan and Bush administrations, I'm surprised that any union member would even consider voting for a Republican. You are literally voting yourself out of a job if you do.

[flyarm]

133. and you don't? and you can honestly look at this and know Coakley was bought totally by the Health

industry and was totally ready to fuck the middle class and the unions and you don't have a "issue " with that?

well who has the serious problem then? You or me?

I have principles dear..39 years of democratic principles..and democratic values ..that don't waiver..and they are not for sale..to anyone.

[iceman66]

144. We'll probably never know NOW,

but I don't believe that the health care bill that WOULD HAVE been ultimately signed into law would have 'fucked' the middle class and unions anywhere near as much as you think.

Again, the 'Cadillac tax' that everyone was so upset about would have been levied against health insurers, not workers, and if it had made it into the final bill at all, union plans would have been exempt.

The only party that ever proposed a direct tax on worker benefits is the Republicans. You know, the same party that your boy Brown is a proud member of?

It is an absolutely ridiculous to suggest that you are somehow upholding "democratic principles" by voting for the greater of two evils!

[mdmc]

148. The whole industrialized world drives cadillac health plans

while the American worker sits on the side of the road with our jalopy health "insurance".

Most people were either very motivated (the republicans) to stop this hcr bill, or were timid in their support (democrats that know it will not lower the cost for medical treatment).

[iceman66]

150. This bill, if it had passed,would only have been the first step

on the road to real health care reform, not the final destination.

Electing Brown represents a huge step in the WRONG direction.

[mdmc]

152. this first step would have made my unaffordable medical treatment

even less affordable..
worse, it takes those that are uninsured, and gives them for profit "insurance" that they will not be able to utilize for medical treatment.

so..
it is a hard sell..
a real hard sell..
I support Obama but think this bill is an utter sellout p.o.s..

[iceman66]

165. You are referring to the Senate bill which would have never become law.

That bill would never have passed the House then, and will not now.

The election of Brown seems to have derailed the process completely, but if there had been an opportunity to proceed to conference, the final bill would have been better.

[newspeak]

159. actually the health insurance greed bill

would have been revisited like NAFTA has been revisited. NOT!!!!

[iceman66]

166. You're forgetting the reason WHY NAFTA was never revisited -

because Republicans won control of Congress in '94 and retained control until Bush was elected in '00.

Sounds like a reason to vote GOP to me. NOT!!!

[mdmc]

146. working people have issues with mandated for profit health insurance

that does not offer affordable medical care..

IF ONLY THERE WAS SOME WAY WE COULD HAVE KNOWN THIS BEFORE THE ELECTION!

[TicketyBoo]

181. Before WHAT election?

Are you talking about Obama's election, because I'm SO SURE that things would have been better under McKain. NOT!

[newspeak]

156. so, why didn't they vote for Kennedy?

now ya got the repukes swaggering around like they have even more power. Instead of introducing a strong public option--the repukes won't even vote for things like closing the donut hole.

Like I've said before, if the democrats are really interested in gaining back the people--they should introduce every progressive bill they can with no arbitration with the repukes--job creation, medicare for all, bank regulation, mortgage relief--then televise it. Let the repukes and blue dogs hang themselves, when people really see the party of "no", means no to them. You don't think the people won't want a super majority to get progressive bills passed?

[eridani]

120. Wrong. There were two. n/t

[TicketyBoo]

182. I don't believe that.

The wrong candidate won because the right candidate thought she couldn't lose.

[Telly Savalas]

138. Brown was against the public option and if this poll is to be believed unions supported him.

[flyarm]

142. it was a Union Protest vote..protest..as in we are not voting for the party that is selling us out..

the party that depends on our Money..our work and our GOTV ..that is selling us down the river..

it was a very strong message..on a seat that has a 2 year lifespan...
I believe it did what was intended..it stopped the senate bill that was about to sell out the middle class and union members nationwide!

[dkf]

4. Well the senate bill tried to screw the unions.

And so the members killed it

[Oceansaway]

5. i don't blame them....n/t

[cali]

10. I blame them. pig shit stupid

and selfish.

[Oceansaway]

12. selfish ??...they were gonna be raped !!...n/t

[cali]

18. raped????? as someone who was raped, I can't tell you how much

that label being applied to this disgust and me.

[Oceansaway]

25. ok....whatever....n/t

[iceman66]

40. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Wait until the Republicans once again control all three branches of government, which is the inevitable result of this type of stupidity.

See how well unions fare then.

[bvar22]

95. Yeah!!!

If the Republicans get back in, they will:

*Keep the Wars going and INCREASE Military Spending

*Require everyone to BUY Health Insurance without a Public Option

*Bail out the Wall Street Bankers and NOT The People

*Protect the very RICHEST, and force the Working Class to compete with 3rd World Slave Labor for their jobs

*Expand Free Trade

*Kill EFCA

*Keep the WORST provisions of the Patriot Act

*Protect the Bush War Criminals and Torturers

*Deny Equal Rights to GLBT, and EXPAND "Faith Based Initiatives".

*Accelerate the privatization (destruction) of Public Education.

*Bury the next generation under so much debt that ANY Social Programs or Economic Programs that could help THEIR Working Class will be "drowned in the bathtub.

*Refuse to even talk about reforming the Voting System to ensure Transparent, Verifiable Elections

*Defund Medicare and begin pushing for "Entitlement Reforms".

YES!
We CAN'T allow THAT to happen!!!
.
.
.
.
Oh wait.
My bad.

[flyarm]

113. +1 !!!!!

[iceman66]

118. Basically what it comes down to is that

the Democrats are not progressive enough for you, so you propose to replace them with a party that is demonstrably WORSE on each and every one of the issues that you mentioned.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

[bvar22]

160. No. What it comes down to is THIS:

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED


It is a big giant FAIL to Blame the Voters.
Blaming the Voters will SOLVE NOTHING, and will only ensure more of the same.

The Democratic Party Leadership had better start listening to the voters,
and START producing the CHANGE they promised in 2008...or else.
Of Course, most of these Corporate Owned Democrats would prefer to see their seat go to a Corporate Owned Republican than a REAL Pro-Working Class Democrat.

HERE is HOW the Democratic Party can START Listening:

* Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

Favor 82%

Oppose 14%

Not Sure 4%
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010010320/poll-shouts-message-massachusetts-voters-were-sending

"I did not campaign on a Public Option"
Beyond Disgusting.

[area51]

119. +2 (n/t)

[Retired AF Dem]

149. +2

[newspeak]

158. actually I found that quite humorous

I knew where you were going--and absolutely correct.

[jeanpalmer]

172. +1000

It feels worse when your own people are doing it to you.

[flyarm]

143. oh yeah..because it was the "republicans" that taxed their health care benefits..right?

and it was the republicans that were imposing a 40% tax on their collectively bargined health care..right????????

wow wake the fuck up !

[dkf]

22. Do you by chance have a preexisting condition?

[cali]

24. no.

[Romulox]

52. What a surprise that you are willing to sacrifice somebody else's interests for your gain!

It seems so otherwise inconsistent with your ideology! :shrug:

[eridani]

121. I have a pre-existing condition, and am also in the disposable human garbage category

--that is, those of us between 50 and 64. I want the Senate bill shitcanned, pronto.

[rapturedbyrobots]

128. no...

what is stupid is two party us vs them politics. the kind that makes you loyal to a party and not to the principles that are supposed to represent our best interests. voting for more DLC dems when they continue to act like republicans is stupid. at least brown has the correct letter by his name. you know what you get (no tax on union health plans). and you can vote him out later.

[flyarm]

20. ...and the middle working class! ..and keep it up ..and they will sit home in Nov!

count on that!

[kenny blankenship]

32. and they keep heaping scorn on them and calling them "stupid" -well and if they throw us all out

after we stay the course on our union busting, individual mandating, corporate welfare doling ways?

Who'll look stupid then?

[iceman66]

42. It is stupid for union members to vote for Republicans.

There is no serious argument to the contrary.

[kenny blankenship]

51. Go ahead and shove the Senate bill down their throats then if you feel so superior

By all means, keep screaming "You're Stupid - I know better!" as you ram it in.

Telling yourself "they're so stupid!" over and over will be a SPLENDID consolation to you as you watch the Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President take this country down to hell.

You're the stupid one if you don't take the Massachusetts result seriously. They DID IT.
PROCESS THE REALITY. They did it, and they'll do it AGAIN. They'll do what Massachusetts did all over this country if you dismiss their reaction and proceed with your "reforms".

[iceman66]

55. I'm not the one SENDING the country to hell by voting Republican

As bad as it was, even the Senate bill was far better than anything the Republicans would do.

It wasn't even the final bill, and would have been improved in conference committee.

Now, thanks to these STUPID union members, there probably won't even BE a conference committee.

[kenny blankenship]

70. And if the VOTERS disagree about the merits of the bill, you'll just hold them down and ram it??

Yes you ARE the one sending the country to hell. Pushing a Democratic state like MASSACHUSETTS into the arms of the Republicans isn't just an accident, Sherlock. You have to really work at it. Well done!

If you want to complete the handover of the country on a silver platter to Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin just keep denouncing the Massachusetts voters as misbegotten fetal alcohol syndrome idiots and crack babies and slam that healthcare bill up America's ass.
Hold still you wretches. I have a BACHELOR'S DEGREE in political science! I know what's best! This isn't even the final bill! I know better than you - hold still goddamn you!

[iceman66]

77. Union members voting Republican

is only going to encourage Democratic politicians to act MORE like Republicans, not less.

The Cadillac tax itself was initially a REPUBLICAN proposal.

If you are one of these people, you are voting yourself right out of a job. Real SMART.

[kenny blankenship]

78. Provoking them to voting Republican makes you smarter - how?

[iceman66]

83. Excuse me?

Are you suggesting that a logical response when a politician does something that you do not like is to vote for an opponent who is demonstrably WORSE for your OWN interests on every level?

Maybe you need to go back to school.

[rapturedbyrobots]

129. well...

voting for a dlc dem is basically voting republican.

[iceman66]

145. Coakley was not a DLC dem.

If she had been elected, she would have been about as liberal as the other Democratic senators from Massachusetts, past and present.

That is the tragedy of this whole thing. You people are talking about Coakley like she is is some kind of blue dog corporate tool,and that is FAR from the truth.

Yes, she said she would vote for the Senate bill, but so did Sanders, Feingold, Kerry, etc. Not exactly all DLC types.

[rapturedbyrobots]

154. point taken

but at this point if you don't come out strong against neolib economic policy (especially on health care) you get cast with the DLC lot anyway. that's the new face of the democratic party and you can thank rahm for that. sucks about sanders and feingold.

[flyarm]

177. whoaa..Coakley took big bucks from the Insurance industry..big bucks to sell out the ppl of Mass!

Coakley in trouble? Pharma and HMO lobbyists to the rescue
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
01/09/10 1:55 PM EST

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley speaks during a news conference at her campaign headquarters in Charlestown, Mass. Monday, Jan. 11, 2010. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)
With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is here.
Of the 22 names on the host committee--meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley--17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there's also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.
All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley's host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.

She's bought and paid for by the healthcare industry and Big Pharma. People are sick and tired of this shit.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway...

[Individualist]

57. +1

The DLCers spew their invective, blaming voters, progressives and everyone else, but they won't admit that the reason for this outcome is DLC policies.

[fascisthunter]

75. they never listen... they know everything... we are stupid and irrelevent

lol

[newspeak]

161. the corporate parties of america

ARE DEPENDING UPON PEOPLE STAYING HOME. I believe that they'd love an apathetic public, so they can do whatever they damn well want to. We need candidates for the people and by the people. We need to aggressively push for those candidates, so that someone doesn't have to do protest votes and pick another anti-labor, corporate owned tool posing as a populist.

[flyarm]

112. AMEN ! EOM

[Telly Savalas]

140. They killed the House bill which didn't have the excise tax.

The Senate Bill can still pass if the House votes for it.

[treestar]

6. So I guess Brown is going to get them what they want

Sending Brown means the Dems now can't do anything.

If someone is not doing enough for you, the answer it to make it impossible for them to do anything further.

Why don't these people just shoot themselves? They can't get what they want. Why not make it impossible to try?

[dkf]

9. Brown already got them what they want. No senate hcr bill.

[alstephenson]

62. How incredibly short sighted.

They'll get a lot more than that from Brown.

[dkf]

153. Maybe they don't need anything more than to not have their healthcare taxed.

Many people are okay after all.

[laughingliberal]

17. I believe what they wanted was to not see the Senate bill with the odious middle class worker tax.

Yes, Brown got them that.

[iceman66]

45. The tax would have been against the health insurers, not the workers.

Not that you would know that from the damn media.

[laughingliberal]

48. Whether on the insurance companies or the employer or Santa Claus

nobody is dense enough to believe it would not have resulted in either the cost passed on to the customer or the drilling down of comprehensive plans.

[iceman66]

53. The idea behind the tax

was to encourage insurers to lower premiums so they could avoid the tax.

Was this the best solution to the problem of high premiums? Not by a long shot, but it was not a direct tax on union worker benefits like it was presented in the media.

[Romulox]

54. Whatever else it was, it was tin-eared political idiocy from a team

that ALREADY had the stink of both Wall Street and the Insurance Industry all over them. It was just amateur, poorly planned politics.

[iceman66]

56. So you defect to a team that is even more pro wall st. and pro insurance industry?

[laughingliberal]

67. I think people on DU forget we are not representative of the average Democratic voter

I believe those who hated the health care bill and kept seeing it get worse the longer negotiations went on saw defeating Coakley as the only way to prevent a bill they hated from becoming law. Will, likely, have unintended consequences for them but it did have the effect of getting this bill off the fast track to passage.

[newspeak]

162. well the bill got worse and worse because of caving into blue dogs

and repukes. Every little item for more concessions for the industry, less regulation, put in an abortion issue, take out public option----and down and down it goes. All in the name of bi-partisanship. screw bi-partisanship.

Let me say it again, have the house introduce a truly progressive health bill with no negotiations. Yeah, it will go down, but it will show those who do not have the interest of the people at heart. Show who is actually hampering aid to the people. That's the only way you're going to get people's attention. Shout it from the rooftops--these fekkin corporate whores are blocking real reform for the people.

[Romulox]

87. *I* don't live in Ma. But I am a student of cause and effect. nt

[JVS]

59. The idea behind the tax was to generate revenue to make the subsidy plan "deficit neutral"

[laughingliberal]

68. There were other ways to make the bill deficit neutral

The House bill raised 3 times the revenue, provided a more generous subsidy, and covered 6 million more people without increasing the deficit. The idea was to find a revenue source that wouldn't piss off the wealthy ruling class.

[laughingliberal]

60. If that was the intent it was doomed to fail

No insurance company was going to keep providing the same policy for less money. The workers would either have kept the same coverage with the costs passed on to them or their coverage would have been drilled back to obtain a cheaper premium. It was well known by those who studied it extensively that one goal was to get rid of the comprehensive plans (the ones with lower out of pocket costs that were standard employer based health care benefits up until around 5 years ago) and force people into policies that would have resulted in self rationing in order to discourage using services. Instead of disincentivizing the providers for over prescribing they sought to put the onus on the patient to limit care.

This is the problem with the bill that came out of the Senate. It, basically, sought to lower health care costs and increase access without affecting the profits of industry.

[Historic NY]

7. A lot of closet Repuke's belong to unions, so this is meaningless.

[Romulox]

11. LOL. You keep telling yourself that.

[LoZoccolo]

19. This is true. My grandfather was actually heavily involved with his union.

He still supports them but is a teabagger-style Republican on almost everything else. He will tell you things like the death panels are on their way. I think for him it begins with guns.

[Romulox]

21. I think perhaps you didn't recognize the face in the picture. He's one of the "good guys" (now)! nt

[FBaggins]

27. It IS meaningless (or nearly so) - but not because unions have republicans

(which of course they do).

It's meaningless because it's what we should expect from a union-pushed poll. There's a debate going on now (and for several weeks to come) re: whether we lose because we went too far to the left...or too far to the right (or worse... because we picked an issue that we can't win on either way).

Who could be surprised when a kos-sponsored poll says that it was "too far right"? Who could be surprised when a union-pushed poll says "we lost because you ignored what unions want" ???

We're going to see no end of polls from interest groups telling us that what we really need to do it listen to them.

It's going to be worse than you might expect because there was no valid exit polling done... so there are no REAL numbers to review to judge how "meaningful" polls like this really are.

[Romulox]

34. A second LOL for talking about Unions as if they were foreign infiltrators rather than Dem's natural

constituents. (Plus I have no idea how a picture of Arlen Specter occasioned the above revealed wisdom.)

[FBaggins]

63. And where did I do that?

Apart from your imagination of course. :)

I'm not saying that unions aren't our natural constituents. I'm saying that in a debate between key parts of the Democratic party (i.e., an internal struggle), you have to expect some biased polling to be released.

Plus I have no idea how a picture of Arlen Specter occasioned the above revealed wisdom.

It wasn't in reply to the picture. I was commenting on the titles of the two posts. That this was a meaningless poll.

[laughingliberal]

72. Well, if left leaniing Democratic voters & left leaning independents keep seeing the Lalalala trick

we can expect to see repeats of MA in a lot of races in Nov. People can beat up on the left leaning DUers on here all day long and it's not going to have one bit of effect on the general electorate in November.

[newspeak]

168. a union member for a repuke

is like chickens for Col. Sanders

[Omaha Steve]

26. Labor voted right at 80% for Obama

Unions kicked in over 300 million to Dems in 2 years?

"closet Repuke's belong to unions" ? Ya right.

[Historic NY]

116. Maybe labor but there are lots of other Unions...& yes some belong to

the AFL-CIO & Teamsters etc.

[TicketyBoo]

183. Steve,

There are lots of union members out in my area of the state, and I would venture a guess that at least 50% are Republicans. The gun issue is a powerful pull. They're convinced that Democrats are out to get their guns.

[Maru Kitteh]

14. In other news: Anger towards face spills over. Nose removed. Result, face seen turning towards right

Great. :thumbsdown:

[NoFace]

23. Funny title. n/t

[stubtoe]

15. Protest voting.

People are pissed enough to switch sides. This is very telling.

[DURHAM D]

43. Yep. And many Dem women switched sides too.

Coakely was against the HCR bill (reproductive rights issue) during the primary and switched positions for the general. The ground runners stopped working for her and then stayed home on Tuesday or voted against her.

[alstephenson]

65. So Democratic women voted for Brown???

Why???

[laughingliberal]

76. Perhaps to kill a bill that would have restricted their right to choice?

I'm just guessing here.

[alstephenson]

106. Gee, thanks for your response.

Elect an anti-choice Republican for a 6-year term so that one bill won't pass. I'm not a fan of the Senate bill, but voting for Brown was NOT the answer to the bill's shortcomings.

[DURHAM D]

80. Did you read my comment? The answer is there. nt

[alstephenson]

105. So Brown is pro-choice???

Yes I read your comment - I'm just incredulous that that could be THE reason for Democratic women to vote for Brown. Pretty short sighted IMO.

[DURHAM D]

107. obviously my response was to complex...

[depakid]

16. The long- and very public ballyhoo about taxing their health benefits couldn't have helped

[sufrommich]

30. Yep, I think that's what did it. Democratic leaders should have

never gone there. The played the conservatives game by not calling "cadillac" health care plans what they are,good plans that everybody should have.

[mzmolly]

29. Woo hoo! Go Jane! Go Rush! Go Brown! Go Newt! Go Nader!

They're all on the same team.

I can't wait until the very "progressives" who voted for Brown and applaud his taking the Senate seat, bitch about how "Democrats" didn't stop Brown from XYZ or how we don't have enough votes to pass a jobs package, or how we didn't get health care reform or...

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

79. Good strategy. Insult and bash on the Democratic voters who are not happy with current policies

Most here on DU will still go out and vote for the Democrat but I don't think that's the result you're going to see with this tactic from the average voter. Might have been a good idea for the White House to have muzzled Rahm's insults of the left until a special election in a blue state was over.

[mzmolly]

82. Better stratgey. Vote against Democats and then bitch when they can't

get anything "progressive" done.

I don't give a flying F what Emmanuel says. I vote because I want what's best for my country. It's not all about "me" and my tender feelings.

[laughingliberal]

88. That's you. And I don't think we're going to win a lot of elections just with your vote

This administration can continue to be tone fucking deaf from now until November if they choose and you can offer them unfailing support for that. I don't think it will end well if there' not some serious change in tone and direction between now and then.

It's not all about me and my feelings, either but they aren't going to win a lot of elections with just my vote, either.

[mzmolly]

102. I've never seen a candidate who can do everything exactly the way I like.

As such, I find the demands for perfection nonsense. As I've said previously, my vote isn't JUST about ME.

[laughingliberal]

126. Nor have I

and my vote is not just about me, either. In fact, I was among some of the few that had a chance of getting some help from the Senate HCR bill as I would have fallen in the group who would have qualified under the Medicaid expansion. If my vote was all about ME I would have been in favor of it. As it was I saw it as the most destructive piece of legislation for the working and middle class in this country since NAFTA. And, I believe the it would be as destructive to the economy as repealing Glass Steagall was.

All that said, it is still not about you or me. I am assuming we are both reliable Democratic voters and many are not. Many will vote in protest and many will stay home if they see the candidates as not working for them.

[mzmolly]

167. Absurd to suggest that subsidizing health care for those in need

is destructive.

[laughingliberal]

170. I think it's been established our opinion of the HCR differs

My views on the bill are born of years of working within the health care industry as well as years of observing how policy impacts the situation of working and middle class Americans.

IMO the bill is disastrous. Every protection the supporters think is in the bill has is riddled with loopholes. Even though I would get health care from the Medicaid expansion the bill is, overall, destructive to the country. The policies will still be prohibitively expensive for many, even some who get subsidies and the out of pocket costs will keep many from using the policies they are paying for. Rescissions are still allowed although we keep hearing the lie that they are not. Employers can force you into 'wellness programs' and require you to meet certain goals or pay exhorbitantly more of your premium costs. Aside from the financial implications of this (which really means preexisting conditions will be penalized) it is an egregious hit to privacy which is made possible by Bush's last minute executive order allowing your employer access to your health care information. I would have expected a Democratic president to immediately rescind that order but the hit to our privacies seem to be marching forward under both parties.

But you're more than welcome to keep promoting it. I hope the beast has been killed.

[mzmolly]

174. My views on the bill are born of watching

people I know die without health insurance. And, witnessing what it's like for a 25 year old type one diabetic to try and get health insurance coverage.

I've heard talk of loopholes, I've not seen any evidence presented. Especially given the bill hasn't been finalized as IF the house passes it, they'll only do so if they can get some things corrected in a reconciliation measure.

[laughingliberal]

175. Trust me, after 25 years as an RN, I've seen all that and a lot worse, too

And a sick husband over 60 on top of it. No one needs to tell me the hell of the health care in America. No one has wanted to see reform more than I. And no one could be more pissed off that our leaders sold out in the Senate and botched it as badly as they did. What we would see if this bill passes is people going through the same hell AFTER paying for 'coverage' they then can't afford to use. If I'm going to die for lack of care, I'd just as soon not get robbed in the meantime.

The evidence is in the 2000 pages of corporate fellating. I've read it. It's online. That's where I found the loopholes. It says rescissions are not allowed except in cases of fraud which is absolutely NO change in the rules governing rescissions. NONE. It will be EXACTLY like it is now. The provision to let employers force their employees into 'wellness programs' will allow gouging of people with health concerns and will allow your employer to snoop around in information that should stay in your doctor's office. How many more damned rights are we going to give up in this country before people think it's enough? Do you think it won't be used against you in your job if you're sick? And for a bill that doesn't help? No thanks!

The Democrats joined the 3 decades old war the Republicans have been waging on the working class with the excise tax. Here's what Robert Reich had to say about that:

<snip>The dirty little secret under the hood is that less than 4 percent of the variation in the cost of current health-care plans has to do with how many benefits they provide. Most plans that cost more do so because (1) a particular set of employees is older and tends to get sicker than the average set of employees (that’s true for a lot of old rust-belt firms), (2) the plan is offered by a small business that lacks bargaining clout with insurers (small businesses pay, on average, 16 percent more for the health insurance they provide, per capita), (3) the work that employees do subjects them to greater risk of medical problems (health-care workers, for example), or (4) most employees are women (who tend to have higher health-care costs than men because women are the ones who bear children). Plans could also cost more but deliver average benefits because (5) insurers in the area don’t face much competition (one main reason for the public option). <snip>
http://robertreich.org /

As an RN, I know our smaller agencies like home health and hospice pay higher premiums. A female dominated profession with an average age of around 50 and high risk work environment? Way to stick up for an overworked population who takes care of everyone else.

I hope the House who actually did pass a bill that would help (not a good bill, by any means but some help) will stick to their principles and let the Senate know when they get their lips off the butts of the insurance and drug industries, they'll be glad to talk to them.

The bill stinks. It stinks in so many ways I don't have time to list them all. All the talking points in the world aren't going to change that. I'd need to see some hell of a guarantee that it would get fixed before I could support passing this horror. Like maybe if they fix NAFTA like they were supposed to.

[mzmolly]

178. I agree with Robert Reich

but I don't agree that the loophole you mention is the only reason people have coverage rescinded today. Further, fraud isn't as much of an issue, given we can't be denied based upon a pre-existing condition. The bottom line is that this is a spring board. People will demand more from insurance companies when we're ALL paying the collective bill.

[laughingliberal]

179. It damned well is the reason they give for rescinding coverage today

Fraud or willfully concealing information. You can't be denied on the basis of a preexisting condition but don't you dare forget to tell them you broke your toe 10 years ago or had strep or anything else. I have worked with these monsters for years. That is what they call 'fraud.' You haven't seen hell til you've been up against them trying to dump a cancer patient. They can and will use anything and this bill does not change the law governing that one bit. Not ONE LITTLE bit.

The bottom line is good luck demanding any fucking thing from them. This is a springboard to the end of the working and middle classes and more health care hell than we have now. Now we just go without insurance and don't get care. If they pass this piece of crap we'll go without care after we give them a good chunk of our money every month.

Root, root, root for the home team. If they don't win it's a shame....

[mzmolly]

180. Cynicism

at its worst. You are jumping to the worst possible conclusions.

[TicketyBoo]

184. Okay, but what is fraud

when that broken toe and strep are considered pre-existing conditions, which are now covered?

What difference would it make? Fraud with this new bill will be trying to collect twice or giving them false identification or some such. It isn't the same.

[Flying Dream Blues]

31. And this helps them how?

[laughingliberal]

81. I dunno. Got the odious Senate bill off the fast track to passage? nt

[WI_DEM]

41. rank and file of many union households are often more conservative than their leadership.

[KamaAina]

44. I'm sure they'll be thrilled when he's the 41st vote to sustain a filibuster against EFCA

:sarcasm:

[iceman66]

49. Something Coakley would have supported.

Serves the bastards right.

[Spazito]

46. Gosh, FDL championed the unions a few weeks ago, tossed them...

in the garbage heap last week and now are back to championing unions. Lack of credibility much?

FDL is Nader headquarters, imo, whose goal is to mimic Norquist in that they want to reduce the Democratic Party to the size that can be "drowned in a bathtub". No surprise, though, when you see them joining Norquist and Schlafly, crass expediency much?

[laughingliberal]

84. Yes, I'm sure if you make sure the electorate knows all about why FDL sucks it will result in a huge

victory for our side in November. Most of the voters have never even heard of FDL. I, personally, think that listening to what the voters are pissed off about might be a better strategy. But that's just me.

[Spazito]

91. My post wasn't to "the electorate" it was to those reading DU...

red herrings like your post are the epitome what is done by those who support FDL, imo.

[laughingliberal]

92. Fine. Might be nice if, as a party, we started to figure out how to message the issues better

If, on the other hand, we continue with the left bashing message out of the administration and their followers I think we lose. Bashing FDL for reporting the results of the AFL-CIO polling is something of a distraction. They didn't do the poll. But, continue. Killing the messenger is always the correct strategy. So much better than addressing the concerns of the voters or taking them seriously when they let you know they don't like the direction.

[Spazito]

93. If you are referencing the Democratic Party re message the issues better...

couldn't agree more with you. The messaging on key issues has been appalling and that needs to change. My point was FDL is NOT interested in improving the Democratic Party, it is a very vocal third-party advocacy site showcasing Nader and that is where, I believe, you and I differ in opinion.

[laughingliberal]

96. I see your point

And you may be right about the third party advocacy slant of FDL. I am not that familiar with them. I did find them to be on the correct side of the HCR reform debate and know they worked very hard on advocacy to push our bone heads in the Senate and the White House in the direction of the will of the voters.

I think the way to combat the those who are pushing third party as opposed to getting our party back on track is to push our reps in the party towards policies that help the average person. And, when they move the correct direction, we need to message it better. The new push to regulate financial markets needs to be messaged as 'not going to let the crooks on Wall Street and in the Banks continue to steal the money you've all worked for.' We need to raise taxes at the top and we need to frame it as "work has been punished for too long while the wealthy have not been asked to do their part." Otherwise, the right is just going to smash it all to smithereens with their same old saw of 'punishing wealth.'

That gives them less opening to move people towards a 3rd party. Don't ask me how we get those bought out reps to stand up for us. If the take away from the election in MA is read correctly and results in some shift to the left, we'll have a much better chance in November. If, however, the take away is to shift right, we're looking at a slaughter.

[Spazito]

98. Just to be clear, I am Canadian and support a multi-party system...

but I see it as a dangerous pipe-dream for those who believe it can happen in the U.S. I say that due to your governance structure as it was established by the Founding Fathers. The structure adopted is antithetical to a multi-party system, which is what the British Parliamentary system more easily accommodates, because it was that system which enabled colonialism and limited the freedoms of Americans.

If you look at those countries who have universal health care, a multi-party system, you will find in many, not all, their governance structure is patterned after the British Parliamentary system for the most part.

I see the only realistic way to change the dynamics is to change the Democratic Party from within rather than from outside of it which means starting from the 'bottom' and electing progressive school board members, city council members, state legislators if one cannot run for those positions themselves. That is what the repubs/rabid right did over 30 years because they realized the way to influence the electorate in their thinking is NOT at the Congressional level, it is at the very lowest level because that is where the everyday issues that the electorate wants dealt with, potholes, education, etc, imo.

[laughingliberal]

124. Can't argue with any of that

It's very discouraging here. I have always been one to advocate for working at the local level but have not gotten far as I have lived in 3 mostly Republican states. My home state of TN was a little more balanced at one time but is now solidly red. Then I moved to TX and although Houston was fairly liberal the state, overall, has been Republican. Now I'm in Nevada. There is some hope for us here as we did go for Obama in '08 but it's still pretty conservative.

[Kingofalldems]

47. Why would anyone vote for someone who wants to destroy them?

[laughingliberal]

85. I think they didn't like the Senate health care bill. nt

[KillCapitalism]

61. Who cares if their health care benefits get taxed?

At least they have health care.

Once again, it's the poor that get fucked at the expense of the middle class.

[laughingliberal]

86. Perfect example of how to destroy their support.

Who cares if their benefits get taxed? Apparently, they cared and they voted on that issue.

[flyarm]

134. are any of you making these statements really democrats? I think not.

and i am absolutely sure ..you have no democratic principles..none .zero..zip, nada...I can not believe my eyes seeing some of the bush bot like statements ..like the one above..

"Who cares if their health care benefits get taxed?"


clue to the poster..


I FUCKING CARE!!!!!!!!!


those benefits were bargined for with collective bargining..and union people giving up wages for those benefits...many times..lots of wages...and many times with strikes and going without raises for many many years ...

If you think the unions or middle class people should pay taxes.. now.. on what they already worked for..and gave their blood sweat and tears and years for!
THEN you are no democrat!

Democrats used to stand for the working man/woman...

Keep it up..and you will see a blood bath in Nov..just wait and see..keep bad mouthing those who stopped this disgusting immoral..pay off to the insurance industry..

it will be a slaughter!!

count on that.

[bvar22]

157. X100....&worth repeating:

"If you think the unions or middle class people should pay taxes.. now.. on what they already worked for..and gave their blood sweat and tears and years for!
THEN you are no democrat!

Democrats used to stand for the working man/woman...

Keep it up..and you will see a blood bath in Nov..just wait and see..keep bad mouthing those who stopped this disgusting immoral..pay off to the insurance industry..

it will be a slaughter!!

count on that."
---flyarm

I am beginning to believe that the DLC Corporate "Democratic" Party Leadership already KNOW this,
BUT would rather see a Corporate Republican in a seat of power than a REAL Pro-LABOR Democrat.

The Corporate Corruption INSIDE the Democratic Party is forcing me to take a longer view in working for REAL "Change".
Replacing a Corporate Republican for a Corporate Democrat isn't getting us where I want to go.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Tailormyst]

66. True and still many choose to bury their head in the sand.

If this bill passes like it is, we are going to feel alot of pain come November.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[CBR]

69. Great call! I guess all dogs should be voting for Mike Vick as

Eagles starting quarterback since Donovan McNabb hasn't done enough for their community in the last few months.

[laughingliberal]

89. What part of they didn't want the Senate HCR bill is not getting through? nt

[CBR]

97. The part that says the GOP gives Jack S*** about unions and

constantly seeks to undermine every part of their agenda. Good grief, Chris Christie in his first week is seeking to curb union political influence but I guess the Senate HCR bill is the worst legislation in the history of bills that unions dislike. GOP all the way.

[laughingliberal]

100. Nevertheless, these voters did not want the Senate HCR bill to pass

and Coakley had said she'd vote for it. Period.

And the Senate HCR bill was damned close to some of the most egregious working/middle class destroying legislation to ever see the light of day, union or not. The anger should be at the bought out legislators that tried to force this monstrosity on us without thinking the working public could see it for the corporate blow job it is.

[flyarm]

136. its getting through..it is just an "agenda" for some posters!! and it has nothing to do with

principles or unions or health care..it has to do with propaganda for the health care big boys.. and paychecks..for those willing to sell out other Americans for pennies to the dollar!

[amborin]

74. Voters wanted a PO, even indies wanted it; K&R and Robert Scheer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7533851&mesg_id=7533851

[Bill McBlueState]

94. "Union voters ... are dissatisfied at the slow pace of change"

I don't really understand the strategy of voting for Republicans as a remedy for this.

But anyway, this is evidence that the Democrats need to be Democrats, not pale versions of the Republicans.

[RobinA]

101. I'd Be Curious

to know what kind of "change" these voters don't think there is enough of, since they voted for the party that has blocked change every step of the way. In what universe do you vote for the party of no change because the party that's trying to make some change isn't making it fast enough. Insane? or just stupid?

I'm a union member, but not from MA. I could see me not voting before I'd vote Rethug. As for the tax on Cadillac plans... If we want health insurance for more people, a lot more people, IT HAS TO BE PAID FOR. I'd rather have a taxed Cadillac plan than no plan, which is what I will have if I am laid off and there's no reform. This reminds me of people who are in the tax bracket to have their Social Security taxed and complain mightily. I can only WISH I have that to complain about when I am retired.

[TicketyBoo]

187. I know this is a hypothetical, but

I hate to see someone say "I could see me not voting before I'd vote Rethug" because staying at home is as bad as voting for the opposition. You give them more of an opportunity to win.

I'd hate to see someone get the idea of staying at home as a protest move.

[WHAT]

103. FDL needs to be scrutinized...

foremost, two areas of expertise underlying its presentation come from people schooled in narrative and public relations...not policy, not law. I see third person observation smudging the line into manipulation. One has to distinguish between the true and the false when reading it and come to their own conclusions. It's a lot like the news, interesting but not trustworthy.

[amborin]

108. you mean like the DLC shills?

[flyarm]

115. I find FDL to be one of the most trustworthy places on the net! That is why the DLC propagandists

here want to censor the postings of FDL here..and want to so badly discredit FDL..

FDL is intelligent ..was one of the biggest supporters of Obama..they back up what they say with facts..unlike DLC posters here on DU!!

[LostInAnomie]

104. Sounds like they are a bunch of fucking idiots then.

They cast their vote for someone that wants to destroy unions, take away their hard fought benefits, and return them to gilded age standards for arbitration as a way to protest a tax on their benefits that was in the process of being changed.

Somewhere in Mass. there has to be a giant pile of cut off noses.

[HipChick]

155. +100

[scarletwoman]

110. People vote emotionally, not rationally.

They're not thinking about ideology, they're not thinking about political philosophy, they're not thinking about legislative process.

All they're thinking is that they don't like what the Democrats are doing. The only way they can register their disapproval is by voting against the Democrat. Their vote is their ONLY means of sending a message.

So, when you want to convey the message that "you guys are pissing me off", the clearest way to send that message is by voting for the other guy.

sw

[laughingliberal]

127. +1 nt

[TicketyBoo]

188. But that really is

dumb, to vote with your emotions and not your intellect. Of course, you know that, I'm sure.

Since this guy is a Massachusetts Republican, maybe he will be more liberal than those Blue Dog Democrats. We can hope. Maybe it won't be a disaster.

I think the Democrats have to get something passed regarding health care soon, or it will be disastrous this November, and then it will be a repeat of the Clinton experience — complete failure on health care.

[Kaleva]

114. The return of the Reagan Democrats.

"Unions Try to Lure Back Reagan Voters; Ads, Get-Out-the-Vote Drives Aimed at Providing Edge for Democrats
The Washington Post | July 20, 1988 | Helen Dewar | .

Organized labor, with more Democratic National Convention delegates than ever before, is laying the groundwork for what strategists hope will be a sophisticated effort to lure back the thousands of Democratic union members who voted for President Reagan in 1980 and 1984."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1268850.html

[ProSense]

123. This poll doesn't tell much

What percentage of the voters were from union households?

Also, there were at least two unions supporting Brown who supported Giuliani in the past.

It's likely that union turnout (at least among likely Democratic voters) was low, explaining the split between Brown and Coakley.

[MilesColtrane]

125. That's not a revolt.

It's suicide.

[KharmaTrain]

132. Now...Has The Mass. Democratic Party Realized This???

The saving grace about Brown's election is that he's on a short leash...he has to go back to those same voters in 2 years. Will the Massetchussets Democratic party and the DNC be ready? Will the people of the Bay State be ready? This dude should have a big target on his head and every vote he takes splashed around...either force him to "moderate" (which I suspect he'll try to do...opportunists always are the sleeziest politicians).

Yes, populism was a driving force in that election as it will be in the primaries ahead and most likely into November. Ignore the anger and frustration at your own peril. We've already seen the GOOP playbook for the year ahead...pick up trucks, rich people pretending to be "one of the little guys" and blaming government rather than the corporates as being the problem. If Democrats ignore these tactics, they stand to lose even more this year.

Hopefully we saw a change in this administration yesterday...giving up on trying to work with rushpublicans whose only agenda is "no" and put them on the defensive to defend supporting the big corporates.

[flyarm]

137. Let's see what has Obama learned????????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7545687


Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law
...from the and-it-gets-worse dept

Following the report earlier this week that the FBI regularly broke the ECPA law, in obtaining information from telcos without going through the proper process (and, in some cases using just a post it note!), some interesting details from the full report have come to light. The two key ones? First, "the Obama administration issued a secret rule almost two weeks ago saying it was legal for the FBI to have skirted federal privacy protections." And, second, the original idea to use these bogus "exigent letters" didn't come from the FBI, but from an AT&T employee. We noted in the original report that no one seemed to be placing any blame on the telcos for allowing this, and why they're clearly abusing the law, in giving out such info without the proper rules being followed, seems like a big question:

The telecom employees were supposed to be responding to National Security Letters, which are essentially FBI-issued subpoenas. But those Patriot Act powers say the target must be part of an open investigation and that a supervisor has to approve it. While they require some paperwork, FBI agents have been issuing about 40,000 such NSLs a year.

But an AT&T employee provided the unit with a way around some of those requirements. The employee introduced them to so-called 'exigent letters.' Those letters, first used immediately following 9/11, asked for information by saying that the request was an emergency and that prosecutors were preparing a grand jury subpoena. The letter falsely promised that the subpoena, which gives the telecoms legal immunity, would be delivered later, the report said.

What's more, the report noted that the cozy relationship between the bureau and the telecoms made it hard to differentiate between the FBI and the nation's phone companies.

"The FBI's use of exigent letters became so casual, routine and unsupervised that employees of all three communication service providers told us that they -- the company employees-- sometimes generated the exigent letters for CAU personnel to sign and return," the inspector general reported.

In fact, one AT&T employee even created a short cut on his desktop to a form letter that he could print out for a requesting FBI agent to sign.

Even that became too much. Agents would request "sneak peeks," where they'd ask if it was worth their time to file a request on a given phone number, the inspector general noted. The telecom agents complied. Soon it graduated to numbers on Post-it notes, in e-mails or just oral requests.

No wonder the telcos were so adamant about getting immunity on the warrantless wiretapping. It appears that the issue of telcos ignoring the rules when it came to your privacy goes pretty deep.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100121/1418107862.sh...



ahhhh I would say..not much..........so far..it will be painful in Nov..but it will not be Obama that pays the price..it will be the congress critters..and us.

[KharmaTrain]

139. And This Is Relevant To Massetchussets How?

While important to many of us who have seen big brother snoop in on every part of our private lives, but that wasn't and isn't what caused the Democrats to lose last week or will have any traction in this year's elections.

It's economics...that's how people vote. This was a rejection of catering to the corporates and the lack of movement in unfreezing credit and pushing for job creation. It was supporting a insurance bill that didn't offer the reforms many had hoped for. It's how people feel when they go into the voting booth...and it's almost always related to how much money they have or don't in their pockets that day.

[flyarm]

141. it is relevant to Mass and all of us!!!!!!! all the time !! eom

[TicketyBoo]

192. But it is

totally off-topic here.

Why not start a new topic with this?

[WillyT]

147. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[lumberjack_jeff]

151. There's nothing in the current hcr for union members.

But that's the way the Senate wanted it.

[DailyGrind51]

163. Do they really believe that change will come faster with Brown?

What a bunch of uninformed knuckle-dragging morons!

[harkadog]

171. With a response like that let's hope you stay far away

from any Democratic campaign.

[browntyphoon]

173. I'm in an AFL-CIO affiliated union...

And Brown would have won if we were in Mass. Coakley didn't even bother to run, no one would stand behind her in my hall.

[SoCalDem]

176. My soup is cold.. I'll have the strychnine & jelly sandwich instead

:eyes:

[liberal_at_heart]

185. I'm glad to see a working class revolt

It's time for all imcumbents to go and I'm glad to see the unions leading the cause. We need some REAL leadership. Lord knows we're not getting real leadership from Congress or the President. It's time for the people to speak. We spoke when we voted Obama into office. We can do it again.

[iceman66]

191. Yeah, I'm sure you'll get "REAL leadership" from teabaggers like Brown.

Let's see how that works out for you.