Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

majorspark wrote: Welcome Dale. Try gaining a little respect around here before you call someone a dumbass.

Champion. You are a dumbass.

You should know what you are commenting on before you call me a dumbass.

bigmanbt wrote:

ou1980 wrote:

rmolin73 wrote: So a guy wins a seat in 2010 and he is your candidate for 2016?

Ummmmm, a Republican just won in MASSACHUSETTS!!! The Bluest state in the U.S.!!! The seat occupied by Ted Kennedy, J.F. Freaking K's Brother!!!

Yeah, he could be our candidate in 2016, hell, he could be ready for 2012!!!


How long was Obama in the Senate before he ran for President???

Obama's ineptitude in office wants you to put someone like him (experience-wise) into office for the Repubs? Now I can see why the US is like it is, people can't see that all these candidates are the same, just vary on what they'll spend the money on.

That is whats confusing the hell out of me as well. The right screamed about Obama's inexperience and now the rightards are asking for the same thing. Both sides are blind sheep!

rmolin73 wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

ou1980 wrote:

rmolin73 wrote: So a guy wins a seat in 2010 and he is your candidate for 2016?

Ummmmm, a Republican just won in MASSACHUSETTS!!! The Bluest state in the U.S.!!! The seat occupied by Ted Kennedy, J.F. Freaking K's Brother!!!

Yeah, he could be our candidate in 2016, hell, he could be ready for 2012!!!


How long was Obama in the Senate before he ran for President???

Obama's ineptitude in office wants you to put someone like him (experience-wise) into office for the Repubs? Now I can see why the US is like it is, people can't see that all these candidates are the same, just vary on what they'll spend the money on.

That is whats confusing the hell out of me as well. The right screamed about Obama's inexperience and now the rightards are asking for the same thing. Both sides are blind sheep!

Agreed. Don't try to understand, it's a losing cause. It's the "you did it wrong, so now I can do it wrong" thinking.

LMAO your killing me Ghmothwdwhso if no one can see that we are screwed both ways they are blind.

^^^At least now there's a little balance in The Screw.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

2quik4u wrote: if anyone wants a good laugh head over to here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4232560

Good Lord but there's a lot of fucking morons on that site.

The flawless libertarians are going to jump all over this and remind us of how many morons there are in both parties and that America's only true salvation - hallelujah - are their incorruptible and always-balanced libertarian candidates.

What they fail to understand is even if the libertarians manage to get enough momentum to actually challenge the political status quo (which I hope happens by the way), their "perfect" candidates will quickly become like Republicrats and Democans too.

DC power and money has a funny way of doing that to ANY politician.

Scott Brown is currently the white embodiment of BHO I realized tonight.

A young, charasmatic , relatively unknown state senator (with wife and 2 daughters) (also an attorney) bursts on the scene to take the political world by storm. Both overcame vaunted Democrat machines to win their races (The Clinton Machine for BHO and the Mass. Democrat party machine for Brown) by running largely positive campaigns while their opponents engaged in bare knuckle politics of personal destruction. Both promised to bring change to Washington, and their victory rallies were littered with "Yes we can" chants. Also like Obama, is supposedly a real good basketball player even to this day.

I say this somewhat in jest, but it is funny how much they share in common in terms of their backgrounds and general place in life as neither were the silver spoon political elites. They were both self made men who just happened to capitalize on being the right candidate at the right place at the right time.

I doubt we will see Brown running for President in 2012, but given his new rock star status if he can avoid becoming a male version of Sarah Palin that gets swallowed by the bright lights and is turned into a caricature of himself, he might very well have a realistic shot at running in the future.

He clearly needs some work with the teleprompter in a formal setting, but with practice that can be greatly improved.

What he has that a no other Republican on the national scene (other than Palin, but she is no longer a viable presidential candidate) is an upbeat message and some charisma. He came across as a regular guy, not an uber wealthy member of the elite class (Romeny) looking to add one more good entry to the old resume. He was fantastic at retail politics and came across as genuine, and that is vital to anyone ever wanting to seek the presidency.

His biggest challenge at this point will be to stick to conservative principals while trying to actively engage himself in the political process and be seen as part of the solution and not the problem. He has a high enough profile instantly right now that he could reach out to try and work across the isle and really build a reputation for himself as a reasonable guy the way a John McCain did.

He is so new to the stage that if he can keep his narrative going as a reasonable results oriented conservative he will do real well for himself.

IggyPride00 wrote:What he has that a no other Republican on the national scene (other than Palin, but she is no longer a viable presidential candidate) is an upbeat message and some charisma. He came across as a regular guy, not an uber wealthy member of the elite class (Romeny) looking to add one more good entry to the old resume. He was fantastic at retail politics and came across as genuine, and that is vital to anyone ever wanting to seek the presidency.

His biggest challenge at this point will be to stick to conservative principals while trying to actively engage himself in the political process and be seen as part of the solution and not the problem. He has a high enough profile instantly right now that he could reach out to try and work across the isle and really build a reputation for himself as a reasonable guy the way a John McCain did.

He is so new to the stage that if he can keep his narrative going as a reasonable results oriented conservative he will do real well for himself.

He also has the big plus of holding a seat that some thought would never be held by anyone but a Democrat.

You can be sure that Brown will be a symbolic target of the Democrats and will be heavily scrutinized by the liberal press over the next few years which - by the way - is NOT the same as was done for BHO.

I agree that it is way too early to say that Brown will be the Republican choice to run against BHO in 2012 but as long as Brown doesn't foul-up too badly under the intense scrutiny, I predict the Repubs will most certainly look at him in the future...perhaps the VP nod?

Still for the Republican Party it would be a mistake to take Dead Kennedy's Senate seat and give it back to the Dems too quickly. There's power in it.

Brown's entry onto the national political stage has certainly upped the ante and added some intrigue to the status quo!

As a Republican for life who changed registration this past election because I thought Obama's plans were better than McCain's, I am very disappointed in the way the Democrats have fumbled the ball consistently and seem to be chasing their tails. This woman in Massachusetts did what I thought was impossible. She lost Ted Kennedy's seat. It's comparable to the end of the world in political terms. I still do not agree with much of anything the Conservative wing of the Republican Party stands for and I still believe strongly that if we don't come up with something to bridge the gap between the haves and the have nots regarding affordable health care, this country will continue to be less than what I thought we were supposed to be, but someone, somewhere, needs to put people's needs ahead of politics and obviously that will never happen. I have health care...(at least right now I do), but I worry about those that don't, and have very little chance currently of ever having any.

Interesting video concerning BHO's proposed Government run health care.

As far as Brown's win last night....Obama, are you listening?

As someone who leans left more often than not, I'm glad she lost. I hate the health care bill and hope it blows up. I hate both sides so much it makes me sick. I want a viable 3rd party candidate for President more than I want the ability to fly.

Interested to see the reaction by the administration on this one...if they dig in their heels defiantly, I think larger losses in November are possible. If they show some common sense and hear what the people are saying and take a more centrist approach, they might come out of this sitting pretty and retain both majorities.

Obama has shown me no willingness to set his ego aside for the greater good, so I'm sure we'll get defiance....which is just fine by me.

Curious to read the spin....if a 6% win over McCain was interpreted by Obama as a "mandate," then what's a 5 point win in a blue state for the last 40 years?

eersandbeers wrote: I think the only real liberty candidate, libertarian Joe Kennedy, really put a dent in Coakley's vote total.

Brilliant analysis. If you add Kennedy's 1% to Caokley's 47% she would have won easily.

Wait... uhhh... never mind.

At least, hopefully, the Democrats and Obama might have to scrap the Health Care bill as it stands now, and live to fight another day.

While this might signal the "resurgence" of the Republican party, i think, also, is that it could go the other way, allow the Democrats to "wake up" and regain some of the momentum/confidence that they had with many before the 2008 election.

Now, i'm not saying that will happen, but there is still time before the 2010 elections, and this might just be what the Democrats needed, as well as the Republicans. Will be interesting.

But, anyways, i was wondering if any other Democrats think this might be a "good" thing, because of their disgust with the health care bill as it stands today.

Ok, I gotta be honest here.

I don't see Obama as being arrogant concerning the health insurance bill.

I see a President whose back is against the wall and is feeling the political pressure to pull a win out.

If this bill passes, it will be considered a desparately needed win for his administration. Remember, the bill can be amended later on. This administration is BANKING on the hope that if this bill gets signed, regardless of the people's displeasure, that 20 years from now it will be seen as a great benefit for America. And with that, the republicans will be seen as the ogres that were insensitive to people dying in the streets.

[size=xx-small]Note: I think that both parties in general could care less about "people dying in the streets" as long as there is a win in their column. As we all know, I'm very much against government expansion in health care insurance.[/size]

So, I don't think this is being arrogant, I see this as something he thinks he has to do.
Let's face it, if this doesn't happen, it's just going to go downhill very fast for the rest of Obama's term. He will be ridiculed even more by both sides and torn to shreds, with absolutely no hope of re-election.

Hopefully this will put a focus on less spending. This is what the voters are concerned about. The party that embraces this the best will dominate in November!

One thing to keep in mind; Massachusetts residents already have guaranteed health insurance that they support with tax dollars and therefore they have the least to lose and most to gain by voting in a candidate who would create gridlock for a federal health care bill. If I'm a Massachusetts resident, it's in my own self interest for the federal bill to fail as my dollars would be taxed twice to improve my health care.

Nonetheless, this still appears to be quite significant. The president often loses seats in his party in the mid terms but I think it could be a shift back away in public opinion already.

The lessons to be learned?

1. Instead of trying to create compromise and gain 60 votes that will get plastered all over the news and create negative coverage for months, it's better to just ram things through with reconciliation (a la the tax cuts in 2001).

2. Stalling and Spewing Rhetoric and talking points truly works...not only for Obama to get elected (Hope, Change) but for the Pubs too (Socialist Marxist Muslim Bureaucrat Took Mah Job and Money Darpa Daarrrr....Self Reliance Darrpp Daarrr Darrrrr)

3. Consistency will not be demanded of Congressmen....Republicans have gotten away with passing a 1.2 trillion dollar expansion of the welfare state on the credit card and still being able to frame themselves as the party of "small government" and get back momentum by tearing down a bill that is projected to cost less then there socialist bill was.

Or....maybe people in America just like good candidates and that's it. As Iggeypride noted, Brown seems like the kind of candidate that can transcend partisanship. I definitely would have voted for him over Coakley.

BoatShoes wrote: One thing to keep in mind; Massachusetts residents already have guaranteed health insurance that they support with tax dollars and therefore they have the least to lose and most to gain by voting in a candidate who would create gridlock for a federal health care bill. If I'm a Massachusetts resident, it's in my own self interest for the federal bill to fail as my dollars would be taxed twice to improve my health care.

Nonetheless, this still appears to be quite significant. The president often loses seats in his party in the mid terms but I think it could be a shift back away in public opinion already.

The lessons to be learned?

1. Instead of trying to create compromise and gain 60 votes that will get plastered all over the news and create negative coverage for months, it's better to just ram things through with reconciliation (a la the tax cuts in 2001).

2. Stalling and Spewing Rhetoric and talking points truly works...not only for Obama to get elected (Hope, Change) but for the Pubs too (Socialist Marxist Muslim Bureaucrat Took Mah Job and Money Darpa Daarrrr....Self Reliance Darrpp Daarrr Darrrrr)

3. Consistency will not be demanded of Congressmen....Republicans have gotten away with passing a 1.2 trillion dollar expansion of the welfare state on the credit card and still being able to frame themselves as the party of "small government" and get back momentum by tearing down a bill that is projected to cost less then there socialist bill was.

1. Not a good analogy. 33% of the public wants this bill. While I don't have the numbers for the proposed 2001 tax cuts, I'd wager it's a tad higher than 33% approval. In addition, the political climate is nowhere near what it was in 2001. If the Dems take the reconciliation approach, they sign their death warrant in 2010. Bank it.

2. You just now learned this lesson from the Massachusetts race? Really?

3. Again, this is a "new" lesson?

There's one lesson to learn from this election. One. If you're gonna run for the big chair as a moderate, you better fucking well be prepared to govern like one. Period.

fish82 wrote: There's one lesson to learn from this election. One. If you're gonna run for the big chair as a moderate, you better fucking well be prepared to govern like one. Period.

I suppose you're referring to Obama...if so, why is this in on him? Reid and Pelosi are the one's running Congress...and so far, if you take Obama's words at face value (which of course, none of you do)...he still appears to be acting as a moderate...He still argues that the bill he supports will "cut the deficit" (although none of you believe that) and has taken a pragmatic approach to foreign policy.

How is Obama not governing as a moderate so far? You might suggest the "Porkulus Sammich" Bill...but he characterized it as a kind of emergency legislation based upon Keynesian principles...and this effort was supported by his Conservative Fed Chairman. And, more than half of the cost to the deficit in that bill was from tax cuts. (Oh right, tax cuts are just "handouts" unless they're a cut in the marginal rates...)

Maybe you don't believe he's really a moderate...but to me, he could be a lot more left than he is acting...and probably deep down is...but he's not really governing that way IMO.

There is NOTHING "moderate" about this health care bill, cap & trade, his views on immigration or card check.

Could he be even more leftist than those items? Yeah, he could be. But that's not the point. The point is that he presented himself as much more moderate than he's governing right now.

As for why he is being held responsible for what Congress is doing -- he's the president. He is the de facto head of his party. Period.

Are you telling me if Obama told Reid and Pelosi to cool their jets and behave a certain way, they would defy him?

Not in a million years.

Obama isn't within a 100 miles of moderate. He tried to run as one, then he has governed from the extreme left. He has counted on the stupidity of the American people, and they have let him down. Now there is no place to hide. This MASS election certainly is a reflection on Obama, as well as, Reid and Pelosi. He made promises to the American people about transperency, and instead has been talked into trying to create "backroom" deals for the better of his party. Turns out, he is doing the same things that he crushed GW for everyday on the campaign trail...

BoatShoes wrote:

fish82 wrote:

I suppose you're referring to Obama...if so, why is this in on him? Reid and Pelosi are the one's running Congress...and so far, if you take Obama's words at face value (which of course, none of you do)...he still appears to be acting as a moderate...He still argues that the bill he supports will "cut the deficit" (although none of you believe that) and has taken a pragmatic approach to foreign policy.

How is Obama not governing as a moderate so far? You might suggest the "Porkulus Sammich" Bill...but he characterized it as a kind of emergency legislation based upon Keynesian principles...and this effort was supported by his Conservative Fed Chairman. And, more than half of the cost to the deficit in that bill was from tax cuts. (Oh right, tax cuts are just "handouts" unless they're a cut in the marginal rates...)

Maybe you don't believe he's really a moderate...but to me, he could be a lot more left than he is acting...and probably deep down is...but he's not really governing that way IMO.

I predicted this was going to Barack's MO all along. He was going to push all of this socialism on us and at the end of the day, he will back off and say it was all Nancy P's and Harry's fault (couple in with continued GWB blame) It doesn't matter to me though; if he blames it on Congress and the public buys it, the American people will keep voting them out of office.

Little Danny wrote:

BoatShoes wrote:

fish82 wrote:

I suppose you're referring to Obama...if so, why is this in on him? Reid and Pelosi are the one's running Congress...and so far, if you take Obama's words at face value (which of course, none of you do)...he still appears to be acting as a moderate...He still argues that the bill he supports will "cut the deficit" (although none of you believe that) and has taken a pragmatic approach to foreign policy.

How is Obama not governing as a moderate so far? You might suggest the "Porkulus Sammich" Bill...but he characterized it as a kind of emergency legislation based upon Keynesian principles...and this effort was supported by his Conservative Fed Chairman. And, more than half of the cost to the deficit in that bill was from tax cuts. (Oh right, tax cuts are just "handouts" unless they're a cut in the marginal rates...)

Maybe you don't believe he's really a moderate...but to me, he could be a lot more left than he is acting...and probably deep down is...but he's not really governing that way IMO.

I predicted this was going to Barack's MO all along. He was going to push all of this socialism on us and at the end of the day, he will back off and say it was all Nancy P's and Harry's fault (couple in with continued GWB blame) It doesn't matter to me though; if he blames it on Congress and the public buys it, the American people will keep voting them out of office.

He's not pushing socialism.

Not to our face he isn't.

No, he is not pushing it because he is not a socialist.