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

















Not to mention, he is still President, and he's a democrat, with solid democratic majorities in both houses.
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.
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?
And which alliances through which groups are radical?
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.
Whatever kool-aid you're drinking. It must have alcohol in it, because you are drunk thinking that.
We tried that?
Hoo boy, you need to stop bogarting that joint and pass it already...
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.
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.
What we need to do is get rid of the "us v. them" game. My country isn't a football game with "teams."
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.
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.
Don't need to get nitpicked for that as a non-response to my real argument.
Actually, Obama didn't raise the debt in one year more than any other President in history. When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said.. Looking at the Treasury Departments debt statistic, it current says that debt for the US is 12.3 trillion. Now, if you take the fact that at the end of the Bush years, the debt was, oh, 10 trillion and some change, subtract 12 from 10, and you get? Yes, 2 trillion racked up in debt, so far, by Obama. Which, last time I checked, is less than around the 5 trillion Bush sacked away during his 2 terms. Yes, it's not good throwing down 2 trillion like that in his first year, but, your claim of getting more debt than anyone else, is wrong.
This is s commone refrain I hear from people, initiate a federal sales tax, and call it done? Well, that wouldn't work either, as a sales tax is also known as a regressive tax because it would impact harshly, the most poor among us, as in, as a percentage of their income, the poor in the country would shoulder the same burden as say, someone making $40 million per year, and that's not exactly fair is it? For example, If progressive taxes soak the rich, and regressive taxes soak the poor, why do we almost never hear the term, "soak the poor"? Perhaps that is a "loaded" question?
Let's imagine two frugal traveling salesmen. They each have to buy a new car every four years to (say) keep up appearances, and they need reliable transportation.
(One guy makes 20K, the other 300K)
Run the numbers on a the RATE of total income each pays on on 5% sales tax.
Poor Boy buys a $20,000 car pays $1000 or 5.0% of his income.
Rich Boy buys a $60,000 car pays $3000 or 1.0% of his income.
Poor Boy has 5 times the tax bite, or rate of tax on a car. Rich Boy hardly feels sales taxes.
Then run the numbers on a $30 pair of Levis, and the tax rate discrepancy triples.
Sales tax is NOT a flat tax.
Yes, Bush didn't reign them in, because he didn't want to. He could have, but chose not to. At the time that he made inquiries into doing it, republicans held both Houses of Congress (with good majorities), and they had already passed basically everything Bush wanted, and more. There is no good reason why he did not do it. If Bush had really wanted to have done it, he would have, but then again, the housing market was just one factor in the economic collapse we hit in 2007-2008, and de-regulation of the banking industry was even more to blame, and can you guess which party regularly wants to de-regulate everything? Yes, the republican party.
LOL so by you math if Obama is in for 2 terms his deficit will be 16 trillion which last time I checked is higher than 5 trillion.
You seem to leave out the fact that in a fair tax the rich boy would pay far more than poor boy in taxes because he will far outspend poor boy so they would not share the same burden. Your main problem with the fair tax is there is no way to redistribute wealth in it. In our current system some people get huge so called tax refunds that far exceed what they paid in. I know that no one is going to believe this but an admin assist in my office that I helped do her taxes made 25,000 in taxable income in 09, made another 25 in nontaxable income (housing &substance allowances). She claims max deductions for her 3 kids so she only had 212.00 in federal taxes taken out in 09. When all was said and done her federal refund was 7925.00. That’s 7713.00 more than she paid in. If this isn’t wealth redistribution I don’t know what is!
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!
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.
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....
It's just the first of many that will follow to keep this country from becoming venezulamerica.
(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.
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.
and then say:
in the same sentence?
Wow.
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....
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
President Obama should now resign!
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.
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.
The republican "O" word shows up here on a daily basis. But it's written...making it hard for you to hear 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.
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.
Wow....you've been sucking MMfA's teet for too long.
Here, try some NewsBusters...
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.
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.
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."
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.
"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?
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?
LOL!!! Sue, Mr. Brock's shoes need shining when you finish scrubbing the toilets
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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/
We must fight...till the bitter end...
Just a bunch of crazy as far as I'm concerned. Brown won. It's not even really in question.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I hope so too. Oh, and don't forget to run Sarah, that's a fine thoroughbred y'all got there!
Let them keep doing what they're doing. Shhhhhhhhhhh....
;)
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!
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.
www.DavidBellavia.com