About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right-wing media claim MA election is evidence Obama should move to the right

January 20, 2010 9:35 am ET — 111 Comments

Right-wing pundits are pointing to Martha Coakley's loss in the Massachusetts Senate race as evidence that President Obama and congressional Democrats should move to govern from the center, despite the fact that exit polls show that the Massachusetts election was not a referendum on Obama.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Right-wing pundits say election result is a mandate for Obama and Democrats to govern from the center

Fox & Friends: "A lot of people are saying" the "only solution" for Obama is to "find some more common-ground reforms in the middle." On Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson said that "a lot of people are saying" that "the only solution" for Obama is to move to the center, adding, "He, by all accounts, was voted into office by the independents who thought that that was the kind of president he was going to be." Later, Carlson said, "You know, look at Bill Clinton. We've been talking about this for the last couple of days. He had a bad first year, by many accounts as well, and then he sought common ground and really went for those bipartisan -- the bipartisan approach. Will Barack Obama do that?"

From the January 20 broadcast of Fox & Friends:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Well, so many are not spinning today, they're just flat-out blaming. A number of Democrats are coming out, and they're saying, look, here's who blew it, because we put so many eggs into that basket. You know, the whole health care debate now is going to go forward -- or is it?

Well, Lanny Davis has written something. He says blame the left for Massachusetts, because the Democrats should be willing to be less lefty and find some more common-ground reforms in the middle.

CARLSON: A lot of people are saying that that will be the only solution now for Barack Obama. He, by all accounts, was voted into office by the independents who thought that that was the kind of president he was going to be. Now, many of them don't see it that way. Was it the power that he had in having full control of the House and the Senate -- or was his -- his progressive ideology?

That's what some people are asking today, and whether or not those two things will now have to change. Will he listen to Lanny Davis, who says in his column, "it's the substance, stupid" -- not speaking directly to the president, but in general, saying --

BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): More like to us.

CARLSON: -- to us, it's the substance. You know, look at Bill Clinton. We've been talking about this for the last couple of days. He had a bad first year, by many accounts as well, and then he sought common ground and really went for those bipartisan -- the bipartisan approach. Will Barack Obama do that?

Kristol: Obama has to "pivot" and "work with Republicans on some more moderate measures." Also on Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Bill Kristol said that in the upcoming State of the Union address, Obama has to say, "I hear you. You know? I thought we were doing the right thing, but I guess people aren't quite where I am in terms of this massive overhaul of the health care system. And let me pull back and work with Republicans on some more moderate measures. He could put Republicans in a pretty difficult position if he says, let's go with some insurance reforms. Let's go with some bipartisan efforts to curb Wall Street excesses. I think a lot of moderate Republicans and some conservative Republicans, incidentally, would then -- under pressure to work with President Obama. Can he pivot? I think that's a matter of temperament, and I think getting rid of some of that arrogance that they've had."

Karl Rove: The "message of this moment" for Democrats is to "change their ways and try to govern from the center." On the January 19 broadcast of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Karl Rove said, "This could be a great moment for the Democrats if they sort of realize what is carried in the message of this moment, and change their ways and try to govern from the center and govern in a bipartisan fashion as they led the American people to expect they would do."

Van Susteren: Obama "would be very smart" to "see how former President Clinton handled" the congressional loss in 1994. Responding to Rove on On the Record, host Greta Van Susteren said, "Yeah, I suppose the president would be very smart to sort of look back in history and see how former President Clinton handled it ... when he took that hit with the Congress in '94." Rove replied, "Right. I mean, in 1995 and '96, he came back in and had productive sessions on the budget, passed welfare reform. But he did move back to the center. After going to the left in his first two years and losing the Congress, he came back ... to the center. I don't think this president is capable of doing that." Van Susteren agreed that, "He's going to have to."

Stuart Varney: Loss means Dems will be "forced to move back to the center because they need re-election in November." Discussing the Massachusetts race on Fox News' Hannity, Fox business contributor Stuart Varney said, "Congress will be forced to move back to the center because they need re-election in November," and that the "president will not, but Congress must." Host Sean Hannity replied, "So what you're saying is the president, because he wants his agenda, will force -- in light of these elections in New Jersey, Massachusetts -- force these Democrats to walk the plank and ruin their careers?"

Alex Castellanos: The election results "may center this administration." On CNN's The Situation Room, CNN Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said, "This may be actually a good day for Barack Obama, in the sense that, instead of waiting of November of this coming year to really lose his Democratic majority in the House, he in effect may lose it now. Democrats may start moving away from him, and he may have to govern in a more bipartisan way, reaching out to Republicans, moving away from the left, more towards the center and some conservative ideals. It may center this administration."

David Gergen: "This is not the time to go out and crusade for liberal causes." On CNN's Larry King Live, CNN senior political analyst David Gergen said that "there is going to be a tension within the Democratic Party. [Political analyst] Tanya [Acker] is arguing the progressive view and saying you have to fight for the liberal causes versus others who are moderates in the party saying, 'No. We've got to figure out a way to get more to the center, work with the opposition, get together on jobs and get some things done on that.' " He then added, "This is not the time to go out and crusade for liberal causes. And ... they're going to have to resolve that in the White House. I don't know which way the president is going to come down on that subject."

Exit polls of MA voters show majority support for Obama

Rasmussen: Fifty-three percent of MA voters approve of Obama job performance. In its election night polling, Rasmussen Reports found that 53 percent of Massachusetts voters "approve of the way that Barack Obama has handled his job as President." As Media Matters for America has documented, pollster Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, reportedly worked for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign and for the Republican National Committee in 2003 and 2004.

Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates: Obama held a 59 percent favorability mark and 55 percent job approval rating among MA voters. A January 20 Politico article reported that a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates exit poll found that "Obama's personal favorability remained high with voters." The poll found that "Obama boasted a 59 percent favorability mark" and "Obama's job approval rating even stayed at a respectable 55 percent as voters trekked to the ballot box to oppose the candidate he campaigned for just two days earlier. The president even earned a passing mark on his handling of the economy (50 percent approval) and received a clear majority's support for his work in the war in Afghanistan (59 percent approval)." Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates is a Republican polling firm.

Even Brown himself stated that the election was "not a referendum on the president"

Brown's "Last Pitch": "It's not a referendum on the president. There are many issues." In his January 18 "Last Pitch" interview with Boston's ABC affiliate, Brown said of the race: "It's not a referendum on the president. There are many issues; you're talking about national security, taxes, spending -- the health care plan certainly is important."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by snoopy (January 20, 2010 9:47 am ET)
      8 5
      Geez, apparently "govern from the center" means "govern from the right". He's already governing from the center!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 10:59 am ET)
        5 3
        I was gonna sort of say the same thing. He's already center of left, and NOW they want him to move right? So, with the other special elections back in November that we had, this must have meant that he should have moved left right? Since the people elected to Congress back in November were all democrats.

        Not to mention, he is still President, and he's a democrat, with solid democratic majorities in both houses.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (January 20, 2010 12:04 pm ET)
        3 2
        That's pretty much what it's always meant to the Reps. For the last 20 years or so that's also what it's meant to the MSM. I mean anyone who could possibly call the Clintons liberals clearly has no idea where the center really is.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RavenRog (January 20, 2010 12:25 pm ET)
        5 10
        Uh, no he's not. He's as lefty as they come.

        For this year at least, it's not about Obama. It's about Pelosi and Reid.

        Centrist Dems up for re-election are NOT going to vote for ObamaCare. If they do it, they do it at their own peril.

        ObamaCare is where it should be.....six feet under.

        Amen.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 12:36 pm ET)
          5 3
          There aren't many hard core liberals in Congress as I write this. I can think of a few, Kucinich being one. Feingold being another. Obama is nowhere near being a lefty, or radical lefty as you guys like to portray him as. Heck, Pelosi and Reid aren't even very liberal, and you guys LOVE to use them as boogeyman/woman.

          In the House, we don't NEED the centrist dems to pass health care. Don't need them.

          What about the healthcare reform are you so against? Please, tell me specifically, what in the proposed bills are you so upset about that it should be killed?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (January 20, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
            3 3
            For one a tax on so called Cadillac health care plans.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MaineiacMan (January 20, 2010 7:31 pm ET)
            1 4
            He is a radical. He has to portray a certain Presidential image thought. His radicalism comes out in forming alliances with groups to push his agenda. That way he can sit back, watch the fight and appear to be 'above the fray'.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (January 20, 2010 8:54 pm ET)
              1 1
              So Obama's calm demeanor is just an act?

              And which alliances through which groups are radical?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MaineiacMan (January 20, 2010 9:48 pm ET)
                2 5
                Example #1 - Healthcare, Getting AARP to help him push a bad deal for seniors because AARP get a sweetheart deal in the bill (selling suplimental insurance to seniors). He works out a back room deal and then sits back and appears 'above the fray' while the 'corporate whore' (AARP) starts to sing the praises of healthcare.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by xavier_ninnis (January 21, 2010 9:43 pm ET)
                     
                  Exactly the same deal that AARP had with the Republicans when it came to pulling the wool over senior's eyes about Medicare part D. Yeah that Obama is such a lefty.
                  Maybe someday, the sad, simpleminded and intentionally misled people on the right, and yes, a fair number of them on the left, will at last realize that the reason we plebes have been losing ground for the last thitry years has nothing to do with "Left vs Right"; but I sure don't count on it.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 20, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
            3 1
            This will actually push them to stop trying to pander to the 60th vote, whoever happens to hold that magical 60th vote at any specific time. That'd be a great thing.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Boxer1979 (January 20, 2010 3:57 pm ET)
          2 2
          Uh, no he's not. He's as lefty as they come.

          Whatever kool-aid you're drinking. It must have alcohol in it, because you are drunk thinking that.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Johaely (January 20, 2010 8:29 pm ET)
           
        The center will is always where you stand.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (January 20, 2010 9:51 am ET)
      4 2
      How can he be governing from the left when he has let Repubs block virtually everything he has tried to do? If he is willing to cave so much he gives Dems little reason to show up at the polls.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (January 20, 2010 5:37 pm ET)
        4 4
        How did the Republican block anything when the dems had a supermajority?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (January 20, 2010 6:34 pm ET)
          1 3
          If you don't know that answer to this, then you've got a proxy who's doing your typing for you. The answer is too easy for you to NOT know it if you have half a brain. So, what you're really doing is being a troll. Why do you guys foolishly prove that you're trolls at every opportunity? You don't REALLY want an answer to this question.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MaineiacMan (January 20, 2010 7:36 pm ET)
            3 2
            Its true Doll, He could have it all by now on healthcare but he cant keep all of the democrats from jumping out of the boat (demanding special favors or certain provisions). He needed exactly ZERO votes from republicans. The healthcare bill is so far to the left that he cant keep his own party together. At first it was going to be done by the August recess, then by the end of the year, now by the State of the Union speech. Dems blew it. They needed ZERO republicans. Now...we'll see what happewns.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (January 20, 2010 11:50 pm ET)
                 
              Again, if you don't understand at this point in time how Republicans have blocked stuff, then you're too ignorant to even be in any debate.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MaineiacMan (January 21, 2010 6:52 am ET)
                1  
                Blame the politicians with an 'R' next to thier name all you want. It doesnt make it fact. The Dem's have control of the White House, Congress and they had a super majority in the Senate. They needed exactly ZERO Republicans. The couldnt all paddle in the same direction. They blew it and you are mad at the party that has (or had) absolutely no control and no say.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (January 20, 2010 10:16 am ET)
      7 10
      What's wrong with governing from the right? Small, efficient government? Sounds good to me. Less taxes on everybody? Great. Less government intervention into the public sector? A federal government our Founders would actually be proud of? You betcha.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 20, 2010 10:53 am ET)
        4 5
        We tried that for eight years, that's why our founding fathers turned over in their graves while Obama won the last election in an electoral landslide...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (January 20, 2010 11:01 am ET)
          5 7
          Uh, Bush didn't govern as a conservative. Remember when he said we must save the free market by abandoning free market principles. Yeah, that wasn't very good.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (January 20, 2010 11:05 am ET)
            4 3
            Neither did Reagan or any other so-called "conservative" in the past 30+ years. I know, I voted for all of them except GWB.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by null1fy (January 20, 2010 6:54 pm ET)
          2 4
          That is a completely false statement. Small efficient government for 8 years? Less gov't intervention for 8 years?

          We tried that?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by MaineiacMan (January 20, 2010 7:37 pm ET)
          1 3
          Bush wasnt a conservative. He practically governed from the left...and you still hate him! LOL
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (January 20, 2010 9:23 pm ET)
            1 1
            Sure he did, that's why republicans voted for him twice, and why elected republicans voted in lockstep for everything he proposed, because they just love them some government from the left!

            Hoo boy, you need to stop bogarting that joint and pass it already...
            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (January 20, 2010 10:55 am ET)
        4 2
        From the "right"? Like George W. Bush? Like Ronald Reagan? [he actually RAISED taxes for the middle class] Were you alive when Reagan was president? I voted for Reagan twice . . . not because I thought he was a good president . . . he wasn't, but because I didn't like the choices. In the past ten years or so, the revisionists have created the myth of St. Ronnie. Nothing in the GWB administration [COMPLETELY NON-CONSERVATIVE] or the Reagan administration was conservative or "small government. My first vote was for the decidedly government interventionist Nixon administration. In fact, I voted for EVERY SINGLE Republican presidential candidate from Nixon until the Republicans nominated someone I knew to be completely incompetent in 2000. Just could NOT vote for GWB. Claiming to be "small" government, claiming to lower taxes, claiming less government intervention . . . while doing the exact opposite is not "governing from the right," and it is NOT what our Founders would be proud of.

        BTW, my taxes have gone down under this HORRIBLE President who governs from the "left." I'm guessing yours have, too.

        Why not get rid of the ridiculous "us v. them" war? That's what the Founders TRULY intended. That's why there is absolutely NO MENTION of political parties in the Constitution and that's why James Madison warned against the dangers of same. Try caring more about the country for a change.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (January 20, 2010 11:01 am ET)
          1 7
          From the "right"? Like George W. Bush? Like Ronald Reagan?


          Nothing in the GWB administration [COMPLETELY NON-CONSERVATIVE] or the Reagan administration was conservative


          Uh, OK? You sort of contradict yourself here but I get what you mean. Ronald Reagan was much more conservative than Georg W. Bush. But no President has governed according to our Founding principles since probably guys like Jefferson and Madison stopped being President. That's where we need to get back to, though, if we have any hope as a country.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (January 20, 2010 11:04 am ET)
            3 2
            Do you understand sarcasm? Apparently, not. No contradictions in my statements at all.

            What we need to do is get rid of the "us v. them" game. My country isn't a football game with "teams."

            Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (January 20, 2010 11:56 am ET)
        2  
        Sarah is that you?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (January 20, 2010 12:20 pm ET)
        3 1
        >>What's wrong with governing from the right? Small, efficient government?

        If only you didn't add trillions in debt every time you get in.

        >> Less taxes on everybody? Great.

        Nah, less taxes on the GOPs corporate backers while payroll and sales taxes go through the roof.

        >>Less government intervention into the public sector?

        Sure, why not? I mean this was only the second time in 20 years that a Republican president presided over a banking crisis and a stock market plunge.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RavenRog (January 20, 2010 12:30 pm ET)
          3 7
          "If only you didn't add trillions in debt every time you get in."

          Huh? Obama raised the debt more in one year than any president did in history.

          "Nah, less taxes on the GOPs corporate backers while payroll and sales taxes go through the roof."

          Gee, I didn't know there was a federal sales tax. Actually, there should be. It's called the FairTax.

          Find me a non-RINO that voted to increase payroll taxes. Seriously.

          "Sure, why not? I mean this was only the second time in 20 years that a Republican president presided over a banking crisis and a stock market plunge."

          The banking and housing crises were Bush's failure only because they failed to reign in Freddy and Fanny before Dems took over in 2006. So I'll give you that...even though Bush wasn't the problem, he just wasn't the solution either.


          Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (January 20, 2010 1:23 pm ET)
        3 2
        Less government intervention into the public sector?

        Guess you forgot about the deregulation that led to our current economic mess.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Boxer1979 (January 20, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
          2 1
          Guess you forgot about the deregulation that led to our current economic mess.

          They believe that Milton Freeman free-market without no government intervention ever except for the judicial system, and military BS!

          That is why we have more prisons in this country and that is why our Surpreme Court has been ransacked with Conservative BS verdicts(Including the one coming down soon).

          That is why our military is all around the world stationed because of corporate intrests they believed in.

          It is a disease!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by alienofwar (January 20, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
        4  
        Okay, so when are Republicans actually going to practice what they preach? Since before Regan we have been growing government, we have been burying ourselves in debt, we have been decreasing taxes but where are the benefits from that?? Our standard of living has been declining since Regan, wages have been stagnant since Bush cut trillion in taxes, there was virtually no growth in the last decade. I thought tax cuts were cure all? Corporations have been dictating public policy in Washington D.C, not the other way around. What have Republicans done for America??? Seriously?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (January 20, 2010 5:38 pm ET)
        2  
        magcynk, the problemis that the RIGHT never practices what they preach. ex.,starting wars and cutting taxes at the same time, running up huge deficets, trying to turn the executive branct into a dictatorship, expanding ther size of GOVT. All have been done under RIGHT WING leadership.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Concerned Scientist (January 20, 2010 7:38 pm ET)
        1  
        If that was actually what governing from the "right" was about. However, you cannot logically make the argument that the republican party is about limited government interference when they have persistently been proponents of legislating whom can marry whom or Bush Jr.'s egregious use of wiretapping.

        Quite simply a small efficient government would not legislate whom a person chooses to marry. Additionally, small government would not have the omnipotent power to spy on their citizen. This looks nothing like a federal goverment our founding fathers would be proud of.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by At_odds (January 22, 2010 12:32 am ET)
        1  
        A future nation riddled with poverty, bankruptcy (probably due to excessive health bills), and no public programs? Sounds great. Less tax revenue from the richest 1%, higher deficits, larger income inequalities. Super. Less restrictions and regulations, allowing for massive fraud and unfair practices. A federal government that some of our founding fathers from over 200 years ago would have allowed, but one that the dumb modern majority voted against. Good point! That sounds great.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (January 20, 2010 10:25 am ET)
      4 11
      media matters (for very little),

      Please keep this idea of obama needing to stay or move more leftward alive. Of course you know what is best for this country and should keep shoving your agenda of progressive ideology down the throats of its citizens.

      In the meantime, this was seen heading southbound on I-95....
      [http://www.frontrowking.com/images/GraveDigger.jpg]

      It's just the first of many that will follow to keep this country from becoming venezulamerica.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (January 20, 2010 10:46 am ET)
        4 3
        Obama doesn't have a "progressive" agenda, phonyconservative. Your ignorance of political ideologies is profound. You are believing the non-conservative babble you are listening to on Fox and hate talk radio. Open your eyes, phonyconservative, and turn these liars OFF. Start caring more about your country than the letter in the ( ). Realign your loyalties to it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RavenRog (January 20, 2010 12:35 pm ET)
          2 5
          Name one thing that Obama did that was right-of-center....

          (Besides troop increase in Afghanistan and wiping out a 3-pack of Somali pirates)

          The argument that Obama is governing from the center is LUDICROUS.

          He's just not able to be as radical left as you all want. Period.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 12:52 pm ET)
            3 2
            What has he done that you view as being liberal? Nobody said he's governing from the right, he's governing from the middle. He's not some radical lefty, not even close. He's closer to Bush than he is to Clinton even, and Clinton was center of it all as well.

            Let's see, troop increase is one thing.
            Increased Predator and drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
            Continued on with warantless wiretapping.
            Wouldn't release pictures from Abu Gharib, or GITMO.
            Increased the military budget.
            Caved on having a strong public option for healthcare.
            Don't ask don't tell, still in effect, no signs of being taken away.

            Obama is not nearly as left as you guys think he is, it's just talk radio getting into your head.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by ConstanceRifleII (January 20, 2010 10:24 pm ET)
            1 2
            Wait wait wait, you say:
            Name one thing that Obama did that was right-of-center....


            and then say:
            (Besides troop increase in Afghanistan and wiping out a 3-pack of Somali pirates)


            in the same sentence?

            Wow.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 20, 2010 10:54 am ET)
        4 1
        I'm not sure it's a good idea for a teabagger to talk about shoving things down people's throats...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by all your eyes (January 20, 2010 11:04 am ET)
        2  
        Venezualamerica. That's very clever. Please elaborate. How is Obama making America like Venezuala?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (January 20, 2010 11:09 am ET)
          2  
          He's waiting to hear from Fox and hate talk radio. He has no clue.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (January 20, 2010 4:20 pm ET)
          1 5
          crossedeyes and binky-doo

          Nationalizing the banks and auto industries, having a set of socialist advisers that only a castro-chavez wanna be could love, obama care, unabated spending on fannie mae and freddie mac, setting pay limits for industry. These are things he has done or has attempted to do.

          But his background in politics shows so much more....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by sjw (January 20, 2010 5:23 pm ET)
            2  
            Get your facts straight - nothing has been "nationalized". If you want to be factually correct, they are at worst in "receivership". The U.S. govt does NOT want to be in the business of running this country's businesses (no matter what wingnuts in the GOP want to believe). When these companies are able to function as viable economic entities, the govt will be out.

            Just like two year olds and the Teabaggers, all you can do is whine and complain. Never a solution, never an answer, never an alternative course of action. Your whole schtick on these posts is to use glib phrases, talking points that you heard from someone else - nothing of any substantive value!

            If you are really concerned about the future of this country, then bring something to the table. Until then, do this a country a great service and keep quiet.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by egb (January 21, 2010 12:56 am ET)
              1 1
              GM is nationalized. US owns 80% of it. If you want to buy a car from that "company" be my guest, but I won't. Amtrack is nationalized. Post Office is nationalized. Chrysler is Nationalized. Student loans are nationalized. Social security is nationalize. Medicare is nationalized. TVA is nationalized. Obama wants single payer, nationalizing the medical insurance business. If that's not Chavez's dream I don't know what is.

              Smaller government means smaller budgets. Conservatives believe in smaller government, balanced budgets (Clinton at least did that), smaller taxes and a minimum of government interference in your life. Most conservatives think some regulation from government is necessary, but few if any think the current scale of regulation is necessary.

              Department of Education is the most obvious of the government "helper" agencies whose work can be seen in the District of Columbia. That organization [the DOE] should be disbanded saving 10's of billions of dollars and still leaving [or rather, not taking from] the states more funds than they have now.

              A really good House of Representatives would de-fund DOE with the express purpose of improving education. For anyone, Dem or Repub that will vote to abolish the DOE, I'll vote.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by sjw (January 21, 2010 9:28 am ET)
                3 1
                PC said the banks and auto companies are nationalized - they are NOT nationalized. You obviously don't understand the difference between receivership and nationalization. When Venuezela takes over their oil industry, that is nationalization. When the US govt provides temporary support, that is called receivership. BTW, the Post Office, SS, Medicare, TVA were never private entities, thus they could not be "nationalized".

                If all that you purport is what conservatives believe in, then we've never had a conservative president. Yes, even St. Ronnie grew the government, but by cognitive dissonance, history is conveniently rewritten.

                Where I live, the neighboring county executive ran on smaller government platform - he followed through on his platform and cut services. Now you should hear all the screaming and whining from the constitutents, conservatives included, because the county is going to heck. You know why? Because many people consider themselves fiscally conservative, but are socially liberal - they like the govt when it gives them something, but hate it when they have to pay for it.

                I'm certainly not going to state that everything the govt does couldn't stand for some improvement. But I'd rather have an entity that is working for the good of the country as a whole than the conservative mentality of "screw you, I've got mine."
                Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 5:38 pm ET)
            2 1
            The way you write it, it's as if Obama nationalized banks and car manufacturers (ALL OF THEM). Well sir, he didn't but Mr. Bush did. Well, some at least. And not even close to all of them.

            What socialist advisers are you talking about?

            Pay limits were set for some industries that took public funds which were offered to them. Would you rather your money keep paying millions of dollars to CEOs who are losing billions of dollars? If they don't want to follow some of the rules set up when they took taxpayer money, then they need to pay back what they took (lots of them have), and they want be beholden to the rules set in place when they took OUR money. Nobody has set pay limits on ALL industry, which is apparently what you think. Obama's administration has only set pay limits on corporations, or businesses that took tax payer money. Do you have an issue with that? Because really, you shouldn't. Nobody should. Obama isn't setting pay standards for all industry, that's just your ignorant mind telling you that.

            Spending on Freddie and Fannie has not continued "unabated" as you said. Fannie and Freddie spending has been capped at $400 billion. They are also now required to reduce their portfolios by 10 percent per year. They were both taken in under the fed government over 16 months ago. So, contrary to your unabated spending tirade, you're incorrect.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by egb (January 21, 2010 1:05 am ET)
                1
              Most rational people would have voted against the Bush/Obama rescue policy. Then some of the banks would fail and yours and my children would not be saddled with a debt to the tune of $135,000 per person for the remainder of our lives. The whole bailout policy was a big government/big corporate sweet deal that we all must now pay for. I doubt even progressives like this arrangement. Don't try to defend it. It stinks.

              Obama is trying to set pay limits even on companies that didn't need a bailout. Remember, simply having the FED raise the reserve was the threat Paulson and Geithner used to force viable banks into taking a bailout against their will. Having the likes of Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke making these deals behind closed doors should get everyone on this list and everyone in Rush Limbaughs audience up in arms.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (January 21, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
                   
                Yeah and if those banks would have been left to fail, they would downright lead us into a depression, becuase on how many people and bussineses depended on them. had thay fallen, many people would have lost their savings and investments.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by At_odds (January 22, 2010 1:46 am ET)
               
            Most rational people? Most rational people realize that we were on the brink of economic collapse without the bailouts. Most rational people realize that much of that money is being paid back. Most rational people realize that your "made up stat" is bogus. Even if you take all of our debt and divide that by our current working taxpaying population you get approximately $94,000. That does not even account for population growth. Also out of that $94,000, only about 10,000 comes from the bailouts. And that is an average which is also much a world different than the median 50, 60, 70, or 80% of taxpayer (average taxpayers). Nice stat. Don't try to defend it. It stinks.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Lizinbklyn (January 20, 2010 11:22 am ET)
      2 1
      W-O-W, the election of this lemming is a clear indication that . .

      President Obama should now resign!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (January 20, 2010 11:46 am ET)
      3 5
      Or it could be that the murky "hope and change" campaign pledges from Obama are getting a bit stale...as voters recognize that not much has changed in the way govt.conducts itself.

      Politifact has an interesting read about this...giving Pres.Obama a Full FLOP on partisan politics.

      He made the complaint that Scott Brown was not an independent thinker...he voted with the republican party 96% of the time.

      When confronted with the evidence that he voted with the democrats 96% of the time he offered the following lame excuse:

      -- the first couple of years that I was in the Senate, the Republicans controlled the agenda, which meant that most of those votes are votes against efforts by the Republicans on issues that I feel very strongly about. So I have no problem defending a record of saying, no... --

      So it's ok for a democrat to vote no on all republican legislation because of principle...but when republicans vote no, it's obstructionism.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (January 20, 2010 12:00 pm ET)
        2 2
        "So it's ok for a democrat to vote no on all republican legislation because of principle...but when republicans vote no, it's obstructionism."

        I haven't heard the o-word much regarding the current Republican caucus but I sure heard it a lot abouty the Dems when the Reps were running both houses.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (January 20, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
          3 4
          Well, there's your problem shaggles.

          The republican "O" word shows up here on a daily basis. But it's written...making it hard for you to hear it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by shaggles (January 20, 2010 3:38 pm ET)
            2 2
            HA! Good one. But I'm talking about the MSM. Dems were repeatedly accused in th MSM of being obstructionist prior to taking back both houses in 2006. I have not heard any Dem or anyone in the MSM use the word obstructionist about the Reps.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
        2 1
        Thing is, within the Senate, since democrats took control during the 2006 elections, republicans have attached cloture to every single bill that the dems have brought to the Senate. Every one of them. This is no merely obstructionism, but, un-precedented obstructionism.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (January 20, 2010 12:44 pm ET)
          2 2
          And Repubs are continuing to block 177 Obama nominees.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 12:54 pm ET)
            2 2
            Exactly. And why? They have no good reasons really. Not that I can tell. The TSA guy just dropped out too.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (January 20, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
              3 2
              The TSA guy dropped out because he had illegally looked into personal info he shouldn't have had access to years ago, and then didn't tell the Congressional committee the truth about what he did when he was first questioned about it.

              People make mistakes. That's not an unforgiveable sin. For most mistakes, for most people, fair-minded examiners can overlook them when looking at someone's overall character. But when you don't come clean about those mistakes, and it looks like you were being dishonest when asked about those mistakes, then that talks about your character, or lack of same, TODAY.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by At_odds (January 22, 2010 2:05 am ET)
           
        Obama ran on the fact that he was different than our former republican president. His voting record was not in question. He didn't run on an independent, maverick, common hockey mom platform like Scott Brown and McCain/Palin did. Yes, he cited 96% when the more accurate number was 90%. And how many republicans have tried to "obstruct" everything on Obama's agenda "because of principle?" It's hypocrisy.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by TX (January 20, 2010 12:07 pm ET)
      4 4
      Well, perhaps Obama should take notice...as the left leaning media such as Chris "What's Wrong With the Word Liberal...I'm a Liberal" Matthews is already trying to cover his back, trying to save himself perhaps?

      He said this on his show last night:
      "I look at the numbers and I`m worried. I`m worried about this government committing itself to so many entitlement programs and committing itself to such a level of taxation that support those entitlement programs."

      Really? It took one victory by the GOP to make him switch sides in the course of 12-hours? Wow...if a liberal like Matthews is questioning the policies of Obama and his administration, it could be a very bad sign of things to come for Democrats in the upcoming elections.


      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
        3 2
        Except for the mere fact that Matthews isn't a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (January 20, 2010 12:16 pm ET)
          4 1
          Liberal or not...he's certainly one of the biggest dumbasses in the media.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by RavenRog (January 20, 2010 12:41 pm ET)
          3 8
          He's not???

          Wow....you've been sucking MMfA's teet for too long.

          Here, try some NewsBusters...

          [http://newsbusters.org/people/television/chris-matthews]

          Surely, you can find a LOT more examples of Matthews' liberal bias than (ahem...lol) conservative bias here.

          Let me know when Matthews gets a tingle up his leg for a Republican. Thanks.


          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 1:01 pm ET)
            6 1
            He's not. He's not a liberal. Not even close. I've been sucking on MMFA's teat for too long? No, I just read what they post here, and by all indications, Chris Matthews is no liberal.

            Do you even know what your link says?

            The first story on there is about how Matthews is talking about how he thinks big government is not such a good thing, and that there are too many entitlement programs, and that rising taxes are bad. Now, does that sound like a good liberal? Hardly. Maybe you guys should read your links before posting them.

            2nd article is about how a vote for Brown is a vote for killing health care. Is he wrong? No. Nobody who would say that would be wrong, because indeed, putting a 41st republican into the Senate will kill off healthcare.

            3rd story. People are averse to Obama's program. Yep, sure sounds like a solid liberal there.

            4th story. Matthews says that Brown is a Protestant and that Coakley is a Catholic. Again, was he wrong? He didn't say one was bad, and the other was good, but pointed out what religion each of them were.

            Not to mention the entire Chris Matthews Archive on here.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by OmegaHunter (January 20, 2010 1:16 pm ET)
            5 1
            Yeah, NewsBusters is real credible </snark>

            About half-way down the page of your link they attack Matthews for calling out Limbaugh's race-baiting over the Haitian earthquake.

            In that article they write:
            Earlier this week Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show, predicted he would be accused of racism, for merely referencing Harry Reid's "light-skinned" remark about Barack Obama and sure enough it happened as Chris Matthews, on Wednesday's Hardball, did precisely that. After playing an out-of-context clip of Limbaugh claiming Barack Obama would gain "credibility with the black community...both light-skinned and dark-skinned" with his handling of the earthquake in Haiti, Matthews questioned his guest Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, "What do you make of that kind of commentary, stirring the pot on race in this country?" [audio available here]

            What Matthews failed to tell his viewers was that Limbaugh and his African-American staffer James Golden AKA Bo Snerdley joked that Obama -- by letting Reid off the hook for his comment about "light-skinned" blacks -- had disrespected "dark-skinned" blacks.


            They defend Limbaugh's joke as being taken "out of context" because of what exactly?
            Well apparently two things.
            His staffer there is black.
            It was made after some jab about Harry Reid and Obama angering "dark-skinned" blacks.

            Here's a hint: those two facts don't change the context one bit nor do they mitigate what he said.

            Moreover, Limbaugh seems to think he isn't racist if he says that he'll be accused of racism before he says anything racist.

            It's like the new "Now I'm not a racist but..."

            See that's why NewsBusters has nothing on MMfA. Media Matters wold go "this was taken out of context, see for yourself" and provide either a transcript and/or video/audio along with any necessary explanation.

            NewsBusters just goes "it's out of context, trust us" and gives some lame explanation as to why Limbaugh was "right" or something. No audio, no video, no transcript and quite a bit of dishonest "explanation."
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (January 20, 2010 2:33 pm ET)
              4 2
              NewsBusters biggest failing is that they allege bias based upon their OWN biased thinking! They think they can divine intent from the actions of people, but they can't.

              That's why MMFA is tons better than NewsBusters or AIM or any other site that's on the right side of the aisle right now.

              MMFA doesn't ever try to assert that they can identify bias! They don't say that anyone is lying. They don't push any politically partisan agendas. They don't lobby for laws or Democratic candidates or push a particular political philosophy.

              They are AGAINST conservative media misinformation. They are an advocate for the ending of conservative media misinformation. They aren't an advocate for ANY political party or candidate. And NewsBusters can't say the same thing.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 20, 2010 2:56 pm ET)
                2 6
                What a bunch of hogwash baloney. Let me help clarify your ridiculous assertions below;

                "MMFA doesn't ever try to assert that they can identify bias!" - They don't?, how about every thread here is their identifying bias, as they see it. Whopper #1

                "They don't say that anyone is lying" - They don't?, what about when they say the term "falsehood" in covering Beck or Limbaugh and others. Whopper #2

                "They don't push any politically partisan agendas" - Spppppppittt! No, not at all, no Democratic agenda pushed here. My god you are dense. Whopper #3

                "They don't lobby for laws or Democratic candidates or push a particular political philosophy" - No never, no advocacy for Democrats here. Dense, and thick. Whopper #4

                "They are AGAINST conservative media misinformation. They are an advocate for the ending of conservative media misinformation." You just said it there Suzy, if they were unbiased with no agenda they would be against ALL media misinformation, not just conservative. Whopper #5

                How about 5 orders of fries to go with your Whoppers?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (January 20, 2010 6:42 pm ET)
                  4 2
                  Nope, MMFA doesn't ever try to assert that they can identify bias. They identify inaccurate information in the media that forwards the conservative agenda. Bias is intent. Some may have that intent - most, probably, but they don't identify bias or intent.

                  They don't say that people are lying either. Saying that something is a falsehood IS NOT the same as saying that someone LIED. A lie is falsehood that's told with the KNOWLEDGE that it's a lie. Because MMFA doesn't try to identify intent, they don't declare that the falsehood was necessarily told with the intent to deceive. You need to make these harder next time, you dum-dum.

                  And they aren't politically partisan. They don't support any political party, candidate, law or initiative. FoxNews does. MMFA doesn't. Maybe that's what confused you! Too bad, so sad for you that the facts totally destroy your allegations.

                  Being against conservative media misinformation isn't being politically partisan FOR any party. It's being against misinformation that poisons our national discourse and taints our ability to have reasonable debates to solve our nation's problems. That's not politically partisan.

                  The facts are all against you. As usual. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (January 20, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
                    2 3
                    "Being against conservative media misinformation isn't being politically partisan FOR any party"

                    LOL!!! Sue, Mr. Brock's shoes need shining when you finish scrubbing the toilets
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (January 21, 2010 12:00 am ET)
                      1 2
                      It's really weird that you think that accepting reality and being honest makes me a sycophant - clearly you don't respect honesty, but we already knew that, didn't we?

                      And we also already knew that your personal animus towards me colors most of your posts towards me, not actual logical debate!

                      Saying that you don't want there to be conservative media misinformation doesn't mean that you support ANYTHING progressive or Democratic. It means that you don't want the misinformation to continue. I think any fair-minded conservative upset could support MMFA just as strongly as any liberal should.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by egb (January 21, 2010 1:25 am ET)
                    1 3
                    "Being against conservative media misinformation isn't being politically partisan FOR any party. It's being against misinformation that poisons our national discourse and taints our ability to have reasonable debates to solve our nation's problems. That's not politically partisan."

                    That is ditsy. Are you sure about your definition of "is"?

                    mmfa criticizes only opinions it doesn't agree with. I haven't seen any non-progressive writers on mmfa, have you?

                    The statement "And they aren't politically partisan." is ridiculous. They love progressive ideas and hate small government and only criticize ideas they don't like. That is partisanship.

                    WEBSTER's RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY:
                    1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by At_odds (January 22, 2010 2:43 am ET)
                     
                  To Whopper #1 - Every thread here is identifying misinformation! Just because someone like, say, Glenn Beck is constantly called on his misinformation does not mean that they assigned a bias. It just shows a pattern. BS #1

                  To Whopper #2 - Lying shows the intent of misinforming, whereas telling a falsehood does not show that same intent. BS #2

                  To Whopper #5 - They might be biased by only showing conservative misinformation (or just using easy pickens, like profiling), but at least they use substantiated facts which is hard to say about websites like Newsbusters or Accuracy in media. BS #3

                  I hope you don't have trouble eating your remaining two whoppers with the stink of all your BS surrounding you.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (January 20, 2010 3:15 pm ET)
                2 4
                Oh Sue, speaking of one's agenda, most of us here are on to yours. Which is to suck up to MMfA any way you can think up, your latest is to laud them as some nonpartisan unbiased website intent on only getting the truth out, no matter what.

                Your agenda demands that the powers that be here look kindly upon you when you inevitably explode one day in a tirade of offensive slurs against another poster and are once more banned from posting, this time under DellDolly. Maybe if you carry their water they will give you another chance. For your sake, and the entertainment value you provide, I hope so.

                But I wouldn't give up your washroom cleaning business in the execs offices yet.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (January 21, 2010 12:02 am ET)
                  2 2
                  Thanks for proving once again how much your irresistible urge to promote your personal animus towards me controls your posts!

                  You really make yourself look crazy and obsessed. You're even crazier to think that your crazy posts have any effect on other posters. If you had some credibility, which you don't, they might. But you've lost all credibility here. You're a joke to all but your tag team buddies.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by westla (January 20, 2010 3:57 pm ET)
                2 3
                Come on DellDolly, I don't think you could find one staff member at MMFA to say they don't identify bias or they never assert that anyone is lying. Why you continue to assert such things is puzzling.

                Also, it is not relevant to any topic here, specifically, and you are always "ordering" people to not feed this troll or that troll and to stay on topic, yet you veer off the topic often. Especially during your verbal back and forths with Right ON.

                MMFA's mission statement is here for everyone to read, they don't need you to list their job duties or their intent.

                And the rest of us don't need you to tell us what to post, or who to respond too. We can manage just fine.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (January 20, 2010 6:46 pm ET)
                  3 2
                  Clearly, you are wrong. It's obvious that MMFA doesn't do what NewsBusters does, which is to allege bias. MMFA also doesn't declare that someone lied. If you don't know those basic facts, then you are too poorly educated on this topic to even be IN this discussion. But, from what I've seen before, that's not unusual for you. And it's not unusual for you to jump in and support RightON.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by MaineiacMan (January 20, 2010 7:46 pm ET)
            3
          LOL! He isnt!

          Matthews - "Well, to reach back to one of our heroes from the past, from the '60s, Saul Alinsky once said that even though both sides have flaws in their arguments and you can always find something nuanced about your own side you don't like and it's never perfect, you have to act in the end like there's simple black and white clarity between your side and the other side or you don't get anything done.
          I always try to remind myself of Saul Alinsky when I get confused."

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Meremark (January 20, 2010 12:27 pm ET)
      2 1
      -
      One gold-standard credible investigative reporter offers some added facts about Massachusetts voting analysis.

      It quite well DEFLATES the massmedia projection of the (phony) Fable of the Bay State Senator.

      Since the advent of Touch-the-TV voting, massmedia has over-protested, and suppressed, any and all analysis in every election of undocumented no-paper-trail vote tallies. 'There they don't go again' ...

      Original Content at http://blackboxvoting.org/
      -
      January 20, 2010
      BIPARTISANLY YOURS: COAKLEY WON THE HAND COUNTS - By Bev Harris


      This article is about our right to know ....

      Back to Massachusetts, I think you have a right to know that Coakley won the hand counts there.

      That's right.

      According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown's 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for Coakley.

      Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently using optical scanners, not sure what kind.

      ES&S RESULTS

      The greatest margin between the candidates was with ES&S machines -- 53.64% for Brown, 45.31% for Coakley, a margin for Brown of 8.33%. It looks like ES&S counted a total of 620,388 votes, with 332,812 going to Brown and 281,118 going to Coakley. Taken overall, the difference -- 8.33% Brown (ES&S) added to 3.35% Coakley (Hand Count) shows an 11.68% difference between the ES&S and the Hand Counts. Of course, as Mark Twain used to say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. These statistics don't prove anything, and probably shouldn't be discussed without a grain of salt handy before examining more detailed demographics.

      As a point of reference, however, in the Maine gay marriage issue recently there was no significant overall difference between machine count and hand count locations.

      DIEBOLD RESULTS

      Diebold's results are 51.42% for Brown, with 791,272 Republican votes counted by Diebold, vs. 47.61% for Coakley, with 732,633 Democratic votes counted by Diebold, for a spread of 3.81% favoring Brown.

      LATE-REPORTED RESULTS

      It's always interesting to watch hand counts beat machine count results to the newspaper.

      In the Massachusetts special senate election, results from six of 71 hand count locations were reported about 2 1/2 hours after the polls closed, with the remaining 65 hand count locations in right away. The slower hand count results represent 8.45% of all hand count locations.

      These latecoming hand-counted results favored Coakley very heavily (she got 55.68% of these, earning 4,610 votes to Brown's 42.9%, representing 3,552, a 12.78% margin) Whether the reports came to the media late or the media posted them late is unclear.

      ES&S SLOWPOKE VOTES

      ES&S had 12 of its 91 locations reported at least 2 1/2 hours after polls closed, a total of ...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (January 20, 2010 1:26 pm ET)
        2 5
        You came to the right place Meremark! We're here to help. Call your local news station and give them this info. Coakely Won! Evil Republicans have stolen another election. This is HUGE dude. We've got to get this out there to the people. I'd send an email to Olby. He'll be the guy to fan the flames. It will be a hard slog because the right owns everything. Don't trust the man. Don't take no for an answer.

        We must fight...till the bitter end...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (January 20, 2010 5:41 pm ET)
          1 1
          There is a lot of information lacking in that report, as in, what sections of the Commonwealth were hand counts completed at? Were they more democrat or more republican? Where are the voting machines located mostly? And so on and so forth.

          Just a bunch of crazy as far as I'm concerned. Brown won. It's not even really in question.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by At_odds (January 22, 2010 2:55 am ET)
               
            The fact that both counts were similar on the gay rights issue should be a decent indicator. Still The discrepancy could mean a lot of things. Maybe the liberals fudged the hand votes (I would guess easier but less effective than rigging the electronic votes). Or perhaps its just a coincidence. Yet, it is possible (and would not be shocking) if the conservatives rigged the vote. I think investigative journalism is warranted.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Gfulmore (January 20, 2010 12:51 pm ET)
      2 1
      [b]I think Massachusetts voters should be ashamed of themselves. Now they have a conservative Senator who could be a roadblock to national health care reform. Do they really understand the implications of that or did they buy the simplistic rhetoric of the campaign? If we stay on the same path, health care costs are sure to rise. There will be no stopping increases by insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, equipment makers and the drug companies. They will be given the green flag to continue with business as usual.
      And what about the claims that if Brown won in Mass the stock market would rally. It is down 175 the last time I looked. Maybe the market knows that the current path of health care costs will bring us all to our knees.
      Between the wars, the escalating miliary costs (for every soldier we send over there, we send/hire 1-2 civilians in support), the escalating health care costs and the increasing payment on the federal debt (40% of which belongs to George W. Bush), the market probably sees what is coming in six months. So much for the rally after Brown wins?
      I think President Obama deserved better. Again, Massachusetts voters should be ashamed of themselves. Voting Brown in as Senator is a giant step BACKWARD.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by egb (January 21, 2010 1:44 am ET)
           
        What our idiot Senators and Representatives should do is drop the current bills and figure out how to eliminate the insurance companies as much as possible from the picture. Remember in "Trading Places", the best way to get back at a rich man is to take his money. If you want "revenge" on the
        insurance companies, empower people to solve their own health care finances, thus, eliminating 90% of all health care insurance payments. Health Savings Accounts (HSA's) do that. For those who don't
        make enough money to fund their own, and those too young to have enough built up, the government would help by covering "overdrafts".

        The Health care bills in "conference" now are singularly disastrous for the country. Both are guaranteed to raise premium costs and do nothing for actual medical costs. Tell me that Pelosi and Reid even understand 1/10-th of the 2000 pages of each bill. It is such a relief that we won't be going down that road, that everyone here should be happy and start thinking how to actually improve health care rather than hand the problem to the government. [If you're really looking for something for nothing, then don't bother. Whatever you say will be to achieve personal gains. I suspect most people here are not of that flavor.] HSA's would have the effect of lowering costs because each person would negotiate his own prices and when medical bills are paid immediately, the are typically 35 to 50% lower. Add Tort Reform and the ability to buy Catastrophic Health Insurance [yes some kind of insurance is still needed] across state lines, and you have a real plan for violently improved health care.
        None of this is in any of the bills and HSA's penalized with a fine [because someone paying their own medical bills wouldn't have any use for insurance].

        Why do people here and on other sites simply support these idiotic plans put forth in congress?

        Think about how to fix the medical bankruptcy problem and the uninsured problem without giving all your money to a giant insurance company. Remember, the Giant Insurance Company (GIC) is either Aetna and their ilk or the US Government. Either one will screw you -- just in different ways.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by At_odds (January 22, 2010 3:23 am ET)
             
          This HSA would have a regressive effect on the cost of health care. Health care savings (Maybe 10K a year) could account for less than 1% of some salaries (salaries over a million a year) or 33% for others (salaries under $30,000). Yes, the lower income earners can't live a healthy life without" expense would be 33 times that of the higher income earner in this example. Over draught coverage would help some, but who how many would it help and by how much. Tort reform would have such minimal effects its laughable. It would also open the health consumer to unfair treatment and restricted rights. And now imagine the lack of negotiating power that a single person has compared to a giant entity like an insurance company or the government. Now add in the cost of catastrophic health care insurance and you officially designed the worst health care system ever.

          These mentions of tort reforms, and mandatory savings accounts, etc are sound good, feel good, just for show, pretend fixes, with no serious consideration. I think the people that put this stuff out are smart enough to realize that its terrible, but they are also smart enough to know that it wouldn't pass.

          Oh and by the way, overall cost of health care expenses (premiums, co-pays, out of pocket expenses) is expected to drop as a result of the current bill.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by DixieChyc (January 21, 2010 6:28 am ET)
        1 1
        Gfulmore. you said -I think President Obama deserved better. Again, Massachusetts voters should be ashamed of themselves.-

        America does not rise and set on Obama! So what you really mean is that if the people cared about Obama, they would have voted for Coakley, delivering her to Washington on a silver platter? What kind of stinking thinking is that? You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to lay guilt on the people for filling the peoples seat with the person they felt best represented their concerns. Do you think that perhaps Washington is awake now? Instead of strutting around puffed up with their own importance, our leaders should realize they better pay attention to their employers - the people!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (January 20, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
      1 6
      I hope Obama moves even more Left, this will just secure we take back the House and Senate in Nov. Please I beg for Obama to move more left.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 20, 2010 3:51 pm ET)
        2 2
        That's backed up by a poll just released of those voters from Democracy for America:

        HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT "DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH"

        * by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
        * by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home

        (18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)

        VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION

        * 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
        * 86% of Obama voters who stayed home

        OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

        * 57% of Brown voters say Obama "not delivering enough" on change he promised
        * 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home


        I hope so too. Oh, and don't forget to run Sarah, that's a fine thoroughbred y'all got there!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MaineiacMan (January 20, 2010 9:55 pm ET)
          1 1
          Given the results of this election in a VERY blue state. How is moving to the left going to win you anything in November? I'm being serious.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (January 21, 2010 8:53 am ET)
            1  
            SHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

            Let them keep doing what they're doing. Shhhhhhhhhhh....

            ;)
            Report Abuse
    • Author by alienofwar (January 20, 2010 2:14 pm ET)
      5 1
      I wonder if Republicans have figured out why they were rejected in 2006 and 2008? Judging by their comments on here, I think not. You would think it was a general election judging by their win in MA. Now their ego's have become fully inflated and they think it's a mandate to bring back the same old Republican ideologies that were rejected in the last two elections. I say let them live in their fantasies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (January 20, 2010 3:54 pm ET)
      2 2
      Right-wing media claim MA election is evidence Obama should move to the right

      This proves that neo-conservatives have taken over the Republican Party and drove anybody who was even remotely moderate out or forced them to go further right. This was done to GHWB in the early 90's and the neo-conservatives forced the moderate conservatives to leave the Republican Party and vote for Bill Clinton in 1992. THEY DID THIS GHWB AND HE WAS A REPUBLICAN!

      They drove away almost all moderates out the Republican Party and now they are after the Democratic Party! Progressives and anybody with common sense we have got to stop their BS agenda!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by HeeNow (January 20, 2010 10:44 pm ET)
      2 1
      The answer is simple.

      Get rid of Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago machine that occupies the West Wing.

      I love the president. I hate those guys. They are embodied evil.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (January 21, 2010 12:06 pm ET)
      1  
      none of these so called conservatives who are praying for a return to conservative rule can name one conservative policy or program that has improved the country in the last 20 yrs. They had total control of the government from 2000-2008. I mean total,both houses,the executive,and the judicial branch and what did we get. 9/11,Anthrax attacks,shoe bomber,GITMO,torture,shredding of constitution,increase in spending with tax-cuts benefitting mostly the uber-rich(some here have even bragged about it),increase in child poverty,increase in production but stagnation of wages(tax burden increased on those who work for a wage for a living)widenning of the gap between rich and poor,increse in poverty and those without health insurance,decrease in job security,deregulation of vital services,manning of regulatory agencies with the titans of business and croonies with the result being non-enforcement of laws and policy with all the resultant castrophes Katrina being the most notable,further deterioration of our infrastructure, nothing done about climate change,abrogation of science and stem cell research,Terry Schiavo,turning over of our foreign policy to private interest(anyone thinking Blackwater scandals didn't affect our relations is foolisn)Abu-Gharib(it wasn't the just the privates),and i didn't even mention two wars, one we were lied into and neither placed on the budget,mutiple deployments(Chicken-hawks always get someone namely workers to do their fighting)with increasing suicide rates of returing troops and inadequate facilities to care for(lets talk Walter Reed scandals)them and their families(I volunteer at a food bank and most of who we support are Camp Pendleton families). two wars not placed on the budget,I can't stress that enough when these so-called patriots complain about Obama spending. they weren't placed on the budget and we spent not on what was needed for our nation but on the rich with little trickleling down and those who sacrificed in blood and labor still get the sticky end and anyone trying to make things more equitable are socialist? Just like anyone who was correctly against the war in Iraq didn't support the troops. Now these same hyprocrites who destroyed this nation want another go at it. they may get it but if history is our guide it won't be good for the country,and my original challenge remains open.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by gousa (January 21, 2010 10:28 pm ET)
           
        We need men like David Bellavia in office! He is nominated for Medal of Honor and wrote the book "House to House: An Epic Memoir of War" . He is a true American hero....

        www.DavidBellavia.com
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.