1/19/2010 The Vote for Change

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Election for Ted Kennedy's seat and its a nail biter--who would have thought a year ago. New Jersey and Virginia gop sweeps--ditto.

A BIG " Change" by We the People--who have discovered what the real hope/change of obama was. Agenda nothing more.

You got folks overwhelming against healthcare reform--and the arrogant in power have this to say Pelosi "Let's remove all doubt, we will have health care -- one way or another."
Interpretation--Fck the people-they are to stupid to know whats good for them.

You got the libeal media MSNBC with Shultz Say he'd cheat to win--but probably the best line comes from Olbermann The liberal icon and spokesman an top dog on network--

Olbermann
"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

Fair and balanced

Could we show of hands of forum members who watch this network ?????

Consensus: Tomorrows is O's one year anniversary---and one undeniable accomplishment is- He has brought entirely new meaning to " the peoples" quest for change.

He did unprecedented 7 stops in New Jersey and Virginia--and now was called in on Mass race for Kennedy seat which should be slam dunk--
You think he will take a hint--or will arrogance and "I'm Gumby Damit" attitude will prevail.

 

[hedgehog]

I AM WITH YOU SIR....:00hour come on Scott, lets do this

 

[Chadman]

Well, that's certainly one way to look at things, a consistent way, for those that are conservatives in practice and by nature. I'm not sure what polls you are referring to that say that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY are against healthcare reform. What number do you call overwhelming? I haven't seen any polls ANYWHERE that went above 56% that were against this particular plan, but maybe you consider that number to be overwhelming. And of course polls are dependent upon who is asking, what the questions are, and who is asked. But, I invite you to explain your overwhelming tag for future reference.

As for the tide turning, it's always to be expected in mid-term elections. The party in power usually always (if not always) loses seats, being the party that's blamed for everything. Consistent no matter what party is in charge.

I note you only mention this race, and the two republican governorships, and neglected to mention that more republicans either quit or were beaten in the last election period. So, does that mean republicans are slipping? Even with this loss, if it turns out to be one, republicans overall have lost ground this year. So, if that's a tide turning, so be it. Congrats on the losses... :00hour

And, while I haven't researched Brown, I'd be interested to see the information Olberman is referring to, guessing there is quite a bit of info that backs up the comments. Some of it I'm sure is true. I do know he is hypocritical, and did exactly what he ridiculed days before, when it benefited him. Looks like more of the same for you guys, should he take over.

 

[Chadman]

By the way, I don't think a Super Majority is a good thing for the country, and if the election goes to Brown, I don't think that's a bad thing for all of us, it's probably a good thing. I don't like the idea of watching a hundred fillibusters over the next few years, though, but overall a super majority really doesn't represent the country very well, I don't think.

I wonder why so many conservatives are suddenly backing Brown, considering his background support of Pro-Choice and Voting for the Massachusetts Health Care reform bill just a few short years ago. Other than the obvious reasons - just sayin'.

 

[hedgehog]

By the way, I don't think a Super Majority is a good thing for the country, and if the election goes to Brown, I don't think that's a bad thing for all of us, it's probably a good thing. I don't like the idea of watching a hundred fillibusters over the next few years, though, but overall a super majority really doesn't represent the country very well, I don't think.

I wonder why so many conservatives are suddenly backing Brown, considering his background support of Pro-Choice and Voting for the Massachusetts Health Care reform bill just a few short years ago. Other than the obvious reasons - just sayin'.

cosmo cover...still laughing:142smilie

having a super majority Republican is a bad thing? why? That is what I am hoping for.

 

[Mags]

Well, that's certainly one way to look at things, a consistent way, for those that are conservatives in practice and by nature. I'm not sure what polls you are referring to that say that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY are against healthcare reform. What number do you call overwhelming? I haven't seen any polls ANYWHERE that went above 56% that were against this particular plan, but maybe you consider that number to be overwhelming.

Chad:

I had to respond to this, as usually you give responsible, thoughtful answers.

On one hand, Obama said "America spoke clearly that they want change and my agenda" when he was elected. Obama collected 53% of the popular vote and McCain 48%. So that 5% difference was viewed as a "clear edict" to Obama that his agenda was what was wanted.

Ok, I understand that point.

Now, healthcare. The most recent poll I've seen (and I think it is the one you are quoting) show 56% of the public against the current healthcare bill, and only 31% of the public supporting the current healthcare bills.

Now, to me, if 53-48% is viewed as a clear edict, well, wouldn't 56-31% be viewed as a landslide edict?

If the Senators and House members are our elected members, and are to support our interests, aren't they obligated to vote based on how the public feels (and this one isn't even close).....

It's is an interesting turnaround - on one hand, Obama wins a close election and calls it a "clear edict" - on the healthcare issue, which public opinion isn't even close, he basically says "Americans are too stupid to understand the issue, so we'll decide what is best for them".

What is the point of electing our representatives, if they don't support the will of the people?

Interesting comparison, isn't it?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Can you hear me now-
-or Boston Tea party Part 2

Unbelivable signifcant majority win even in Cape Cod area--and just the beginning

Appears even the most liberal state in union--refuses to tolerate the continuing flops on every issue--the outright bribes of senators --the closed meeting on late Christmas eve in the name of transparency--one tax law for union and gov employees and ne for rest of country

While "the People" despise Washington politics the apparently abhore Chicago politics.

Will be an interesting state of the union speech--wonder if O learned anything or if we once again get the--I won-I'm Gumby Damit--attitude.

-- Wonder if Pelosi proceeds with--"Let's remove all doubt, we will have health care -- one way or another."

Wonder if there having last rights for Olbermann and msnbc--


Olbermann
"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

Wonder who was responsible for this video--As it pretty much sums things up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0&feature=player_embedded

 

[rusty]

I will admit this DTB.The 1 person overlooked who really hurt Coakleys chances??Deval Patrick.Believe it.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Rusty

I have to think with take over of auto-banks-anticipation of taking over energy (ala Chavez)--abuse of constitutions via open bribes-diff taxes for unions/gov than regular folks--fining people for not joining their plan--and having to watch O on tv day after day contradicting what he previously said--the day/month/year before--they realized the meaning of word Grifter/Con and could see the sting developing

 

[Chadman]

Going to respond to Mags and Wayne here - pressed for time today, but want to respond. Mags, my point was that I don't consider 56% of the American people to be an overwhelming majority. It's a majority, yes, but I don't consider 5.5 out of 10 people to be an overwhelming majority. You bring up Obama and what he said - I don't think it's the same thing - I don't consider Obama's win to be an overwhelming majority - the number being just over half. His commentary is understandable, after winning a very hard fought election. I don't remember him saying it was an overwhelming majority, however, like Wayne was claiming about the healthcare. You can lump them together if you like, I just think it's two different things.

As for representatives staying true to the will of the people, I don't think either side has done that to any degree for a long time now. Take representatives, senators, etc., changing parties after being elected by essentially a majority of people that support the other side of most issues. The will of the people is solidly behind healthcare reform - you know it, Wayne knows it, and almost everyone thinks it needs to be done. How it gets done is the ongoing issue, and the dems deciding to wait until Brown is seated says a lot, I think. The real problem is here, that if the dems don't try to make something happen, nothing ever will get done, IMO. The republicans have never been motivated to do anything, unless made to look like they don't care. And we all should agree that's the case. They have never come up with anything on their own, and I'm not holding my breath if and when they gain power again, to see their healthcare reform initiatives. I think the dems tried to do too much, too fast, but I also think the reps were going to prevent anything from happening come Hell or high water, and that's the problem.

Wayne, as mentioned in another thread, I don't consider this election to be an over the top mandate against Obama, but i'm sure there is a little of that. I do think it's a strong mandate against what a terrible candidate Coakley was, and what a bad race she ran, if you can even really consider it a run. She took much for granted, and didn't campaign hard at all. That just doesn't cut it these days, as the Republicans found out last major election, and the dems will find out if they don't work hard and put up good candidates.

With all of the hardships the country has been going through, I'd expect the winds to change back - they always do in the middle to end of election cycles. And I think the dems are getting a little perspective, and will try to accomplish less in year two - that always happens, too.

As for Olberman, I think the comments were in poor taste, personally. But he came out the other night after, and asked people to show where he was wrong in his comments, and invited a discussion. Nobody has done that yet, to my knowledge, and perhaps they should, if they think the comments are factually incorrect. Not my style, again, and think it contributes to the sad state we're in. But there is some truth to some of those labels, with Scott.

 

[Chadman]

And again, if the republican gains show such a strong tide turning, what about the democrat gains in that same election cycle? Seriously, is that fair and balanced? Believe the dems gained more than republicans, from what I read, but that's never mentioned with all the carrying on here.

 

[Mags]

Mags, my point was that I don't consider 56% of the American people to be an overwhelming majority. It's a majority, yes, but I don't consider 5.5 out of 10 people to be an overwhelming majority.

The numbers I was referring to was 56% against the bills and 31% for the billls. That leaves 13% with no opinion. That is a vast majority - 56% of the 87% who had an opinion on this issue would be 64% of those who had an opinion. That is a strong majority in my book.

The will of the people is solidly behind healthcare reform - you know it, Wayne knows it, and almost everyone thinks it needs to be done.

Absolutely agree with this

The real problem is here, that if the dems don't try to make something happen, nothing ever will get done, IMO. The republicans have never been motivated to do anything, unless made to look like they don't care. And we all should agree that's the case. They have never come up with anything on their own, and I'm not holding my breath if and when they gain power again, to see their healthcare reform initiatives.

I respectfully disagree. The Republicans do have great ideas - see Paul Ryan (R-WI) plan for health care reform. His approach (and is the one that I back) GUARANTEES access to health care for all via risk pools. That is the first step to fixing our problem. The 2nd piece is tieing high risk pool premiums to market premiums (typically 150% of the market premiums) to ensure some level of affordability. The third step is finding a way to help people afford coverage that can't do so now. That is the toughest piece - because somebody has to pay for that, and we all fight about who should pay for it. I believe that our country's health is part of the common good - and we all should share equally in that cost - whether or not you are over that magical $250,000 income level that "O" always talks about.

The problem with the Dem's proposals is that they don't want to apply simple steps that will greatly improve the system (as shown above - these would be easy and quick changes that would accomplish many of the goals of the legislation). To the Dems, it is way more important to have a huge bill that builds a big government system as an important piece of this. That's what Dems do - build more legacy costs in the government system for future generations to have to support, instead of just looking for cost effective adjustments that make more sense as many times they don't involve building a bigger empire.

Neither the house or Senate bill, nor the approach I've outlined above, will bring down health care costs.

The Senate bill, for example, costs almost a trillion dollars. AND that includes $500 M in Medicare cuts to physicians. Given that we pass the Medicare fix every year, and will continue to every year, we know the current bill costs $1.5M.

We should fix access to all first, then work on helping with subsidies for people, and then start pounding the cost issues. That's how I see it anyway....