I like how the new trend is to say that republicans are more evil than democrats. (I also heard a hilarious McCain quote about pandering to the right: "why would i want to be the leader of those assholes?") Wait, like Al Franken? (I have no idea what the hell he has done since he got into office)
I like how people think there is actually a difference between the two isles. Sure, the words may be different, but when the final action is taken into concideration, it's whatever the lobbyists/corporate america pays for that gets voted in by both sides of the isle. That's why it takes so ling to pass shit. it has to make consesions to all the political contributors, and do so in a way to not have a taxpayer revolt. Quite the balancing act. If congress wasn't so busy stealing our wallets then helping us look for them, something may actually be accomplished in DC.
One thing's for sure, those that wrote the "tea baggers" off and didn't take them seriously fucked up royally. Radical right-wing activists, that cracks me up. The Dems will do well to study the composition of the Tea Party movement, it's clear that their leadership really doesn't even know who these people are. Writing them off as right-wing nuts is what got them in this mess in the first place.
I thought that Kennedy that was de-throned wasn't even related to the famous Kennedys, so why is it relevant?
I still take issue with the idea that there is a "the democrats". There are a bunch of folks from right to left, with no unifying points except for their party affiliation.
Obama responded well on ABC. He basically acknowledged the significance of the defeat, that it signaled anger over what's going on, and that there would not be an attempt to slam health care in before Brown is seated. That would have been a very, very bad idea.
When one of the parties seems to wholeheartedly endorse torture and never ending war, and the other doesn't, I think there are still mild differences between the two. (two give just one example, which is admittedly a simplification) *shrug*
You don't clean up deficit spending with even MORE deficit spending. Obama is a financial train wreck, the epitome of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Except the majority of economist at the time disagreed with you. The debate at the time wasn't about "what do we do" the debate was "how much". The only people I hear saying this election was the American people telling democrats "no more liberal policies" are the right and the same 30% that supported Bush no matter what (msp, and tac for example). Considering the type of campaign Brown ran, a centrist and as an independent with an R next to his name, to think this was about anything more than the people being sick and tired of the same old shit and the same old politics, is foolish. She ran a half assed campaign and was too good to get off her high horse to shake peoples hands in the cold, she lost because the other guy tried and put enough into it that people thought he cared more about them than she did. It's cleaning time and anything old will be thrown out, anything new and independent looking will be in. Posted via Mobile Device
I agree. Obamas agenda during the election was as clear as day, there were no ambiguities (especially when it came to health care). The only thing Obama has done that he campaigned on was to take the fight to the terrorists, which is what he did in Afghanistan. Everything else has been half assed or has had the opposite affect of what the American people wanted.
That's pretty much what I expected would happen, when "Obama's agenda" ran smack into the Congressional Sausage-making Machine. People forget that this stuff is actually made by the Legislative Branch, and the Executive Branch only Executes the law afterwards. I knew Health Care was going to wreck the moment I heard Barney Frank sniping to a reporter that Obama doesn't run the Senate. The Democrats are kind of like NBC executives! Never failing to fail, and always snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory!
Echoing my earlier post which has been conveniently ignored, do you not find it a bit absurd that a party which currently has an 18 seat majority in the senate cannot pass its legislation because of abuse of a rule that was put into place to ensure adequate debate on an issue?
From everything I have read, that is not the case. This seems like it was more of a backlash against the dems than anything else. I haven't studies the situation too much, but neither of them seemed to have done anything too stupid, they both ran solid campaigns, excluding her thinking it was a shoe-in. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15330461: I'm not particularly impressed by Brown (blatantly antigaymarriage and anticlimate change) but I am pumped the fucking supermajority is gone. I still hope November ends up being a shitstorm in congress, I would be perfectly happy with Obama as presidente and a close to even congress, preferably a slight republican majority
The thing they (Democrats) never really had a supermajority. I mean for fucks sake, one of the "dems" who made it 60 was Leiberman! That guy is a real POS... And the whole 60 needed to break a filibuster, that is nothing more than minority rule, the fact they can't get anything done when they still have an 18 seat majority is just absurd. But also, the dems suck at politics Brown analysis:
The founding fathers implemented those rules so that whatever party that was in power would still have to work with the minority party, and wouldn't be able to freely pass legislation that was wildly to the left or right. It's a deliberate mechanism that's doing it's job beautifully. Polls show that the majority of the people don't want health care reform (in it's current form), and the Constitution is protecting us from Nancy fucking Pelosi.
This! Meanwhile, look at all the time and resources spent on that POS healthcare bill that could have been better spent. A bill that would, aside from a few token bones, benefit the medical and pharm corporations more than the public.
New poll: So a great deal of health care opposition is simply because people are clueless. Unfortunately, this is not a surprise.
This is where Obama has failed. He has not sold health care and has not sold the benefits of the current bill or any bill being proposed.
Maybe because the whole fiasco has been in a state of flux since the first draft. Then, when the voting started, he sure as hell didn't want the people to know just how much we were sopld out. just to get that POS legislation to a vote. Check this out: It is now reiterated that corporate lobbying and cqampaign bribes donations are as constitutionally legal as owning a gun or voting. We are totally fuct today and tomorrow, we'll we fucter. This is partially the fruits of labling people with a "tinfoil" tag. It has been openly admitted that the bills being voted on do absol-fucking-lutely nothing to address the cause of the problem. Typical "bandaid the problem and let it fester some more" tactics.
