Go Scott Brown!

[anitram]

Cause I can find freedom of speech in the Bill Of Rights. Still looking for marriage equality.

And you also find the concept of corporation as a separate legal entity articulated in your constitution? Could you point me to it please?

 

[BVS]

All written word comes down to interpretation. Bible, Constitution, U2 songs... etc...

Maybe someday you'll get that.

Your grandchildren will get it...

 

[diamond]

It's the economy stupid. As the expression goes. It's not going well, the Democrats are in power, so they vote in the Republican. If it was reverse, then the democrat wins.

Plenty of other things going on of course, but in my home state of MA, I think it mostly angry about the economy. Health care wasn't an issue, because we already have a better version than the congress is proposing. And Martha rang a horrible campaign.

My friend nails it -- Steve Kornacki

And btw, women are 0 for 8 in MA running for Senate. So think more sexism than racism.


. You need 51. Just pass the fucker.

0 for 8 speaks volumes. No woman senator ever elected from Mass. Hmm.

There is sexism in both parties, altho the Democrats are more closeted and clandestine about it-look what they did to Hillary vs an unknown and unvetted Obama.

If the Dems really wanted this form of Health Care they would use the nuclear option, truth is, is that it is too flawed, they know it and it would be wreckless.It would be the final albatross around their neck-making the economy irreparable.

So, kudos to the few select Dems that are stopping a bad situation from becoming worse.

<>

 

[diamond]

All written word comes down to interpretation. Bible, Constitution, U2 songs... etc...

Maybe someday you'll get that.

Your grandchildren will get it...

Wrong about the Bible and Constitution-they are not art.

U2 music is art however.

1 out of 3 isn't bad.

<>

 

[Strongbow]

Unemployment, average 1970s: 7.01% 1980s:7.2%

The average for the 1970s is incorrect. Here is the average unemployment rates for each of the past four decades:

70s: 6.22%
80s: 7.27%
90s: 5.76%
00s: 5.54% (the alleged decade from hell )

 

[PhilsFan]

So you admit "equality" is in the "interpretation" of the Constitution.

It's a start.

Now if we can just get you and others to see that there may be reasons other than "homophobia" or "racism" to explain why someone may interpret the Constitution differently than you.

You keep trying to expand your views on same sex marriage to be a statement about disagreeing on opinions. Which is a distraction tactic.

I disagree with you about the economy and all that with respect. That's subjective. There are legitimate viewpoints on both sides. I don't have any respect for your views on same sex marriage. They're not differing, they're just wrong.

 

[INDY500]

I disagree with you about the economy and all that with respect. That's subjective. There are legitimate viewpoints on both sides. I don't have any respect for your views on same sex marriage. They're not differing, they're just wrong.

Can I be wrong about the issue for reasons other than homophobia? We already have a thread on the subject so just a simple yes or no will do.

 

[Irvine511]

Can I be wrong about the issue for reasons other than homophobia?

we've asked you for years to give a reason, and you haven't offered anything.

 

[PhilsFan]

Can I be wrong about the issue for reasons other than homophobia? We already have a thread on the subject so just a simple yes or no will do.

A reason based around logic. If it's illogical, it looks like a cover for homophobia.

 

[Bluer White]

.. and there goes the Senator Brown thread.

 

[BVS]

Wrong about the Bible and Constitution-they are not art.

U2 music is art however.

1 out of 3 isn't bad.

<>

Come on Diamond you are not this thick...

Please tell me you are not this thick... Please?

 

[anitram]

And you also find the concept of corporation as a separate legal entity articulated in your constitution? Could you point me to it please?

Still waiting on this INDY...

 

[Bluer White]

Another reason Brown won and Coakley/Obama lost: views on national security.

In congressional testimony on January 20, the nation’s top intelligence official, Dennis Blair, acknowledged that the U.S. government mishandled the interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian terrorist who tried to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day. Specifically, Blair was not happy that Abdulmutallab was charged as a common criminal and read his rights, rather than being questioned by the elite interrogation unit announced by President Obama as a replacement for the CIA teams used by the Bush administration.

It turns out Blair was just one of several top counterterrorism officials who were not consulted on the very important decision as to how to question Abdulmutallab. Also on the list: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Michael Leiter, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Obama administration officials were not happy with Blair’s sudden outbreak of transparency. Within hours of the hearing’s end, Newsweek reported that “Obama administration officials were flabbergasted” by Blair’s testimony, which was “misinformed on multiple levels.” How? For one thing, these officials explained, the high-value detainee interrogation group that Blair described “doesn’t exist.”

That’s not reassuring. A year after Obama’s executive order, the HIG is not yet up and running, and his top intelligence guy is in the dark?

The intelligence failures that led to the Detroit attack are cause for deep concern. But the stunning incompetence of the Obama administration’s response to the attack—laid bare in those hearings last week—is more worrisome.

‘Duh!’ | The Weekly Standard

 

[Muldfeld]

I am so pissed at this victory and that the media is framing it as evidence that Obama has moved far to the left, when he's actually been moderate or even moved to the right. How has this guy been left-wing? By George W. Bush standards? Is this our metric? He's basically Clinton II and even a bit Bush. Some are saying that Obama never really wanted a public option in order to please the corporations. Obama is motivated by a second term more than anything else.

I hate the mainstream news media -- people like David Gergen and Gloria Borger -- who care only about sensationalizing the drama to boost their careers.

The Dems should just go ahead and pass health care and risk a filibuster. Do you know what obstructionist pricks the GOP will look like if they do that? It'll be like Newt Gingrich in 1995. Screw 'em.

The Dems are already too corporate. Bill Maher said it best:
YouTube - Bill Maher - Democrats Are The New Republicans

(I don't know about legalizing pot, though.)

 

[PhilsFan]

At the VERY least, decriminalize pot. I think it should be totally legal, though.

This coming from someone who doesn't smoke pot.

 

[INDY500]

Still waiting on this INDY...
And you also find the concept of corporation as a separate legal entity articulated in your constitution? Could you point me to it please?

Sure thing, it's next to the flag-burning and nude erotic dancing clause.

 

[Bluer White]

Some are saying that Obama never really wanted a public option in order to please the corporations. Obama is motivated by a second term more than anything else.

You're right. After almost a year of campaigning nationwide, the president still couldn't spell out what he wanted for health care reform. The public option was supposed to be the cornerstone, but oh, he could do without it.

Instead of leading, he completely farmed out his health care bill to Harry and Nancy. Shockingly, Harry and Nancy came up with bad legislation with backdoor shenanigans piled on top to bribe their own members. And the public is starting to notice, with the last few governorships, and now Brown's win in blue Massachusetts as the exclamation point.

 

[maycocksean]

You're right. After almost a year of campaigning nationwide, the president still couldn't spell out what he wanted for health care reform. The public option was supposed to be the cornerstone, but oh, he could do without it.

Instead of leading, he completely farmed out his health care bill to Harry and Nancy.

I'd be hard pressed to disagree with you. Obama and the Dems let the Republicans win the PR war on this issue.

I'm beginning to wonder if Health Care Reform will become Obama's Iraq War.

 

[Irvine511]

Instead of leading, he completely farmed out his health care bill to Harry and Nancy. Shockingly, Harry and Nancy came up with bad legislation with backdoor shenanigans piled on top to bribe their own members. And the public is starting to notice, with the last few governorships, and now Brown's win in blue Massachusetts as the exclamation point.

i think some of this is astute, but i think the victories in VA and NJ are vastly overblown as some sort of commentary on Obama. Creigh Deeds was an awful candidate (i live just over the Potomac in NoVA), so was Coakley, and Corzine was as corrupt as they come.

in elections, one makes a decision to pull a level, hence, all GWB had to do was beat Kerry, and that's what he did.

 

[U2387]

My argument is simply that Mass voters knew very well that a vote for Brown was a vote to kill Obama policies in the Senate.

Ok, sorry it sounded like more than that with the "forest through the trees." I will agree in part with what you said.

He gave his image, his independence, and his promise to be a man of the people in DC alot more play.

Again, I never denied that he said he was going to be #41 , in fact he seems to think that is a substitute for having any kind of knowledge of or plans to address the issues.

There are, to be absolutely certain, people in MA who voted for Brown because they wanted the Obama agenda stopped.

What caught my eye with your first post was: "It is much bigger than Coakley's arrogance and shortcomings."

Again, explain a 20-30 point lead (depending on who you listen to) 2 weeks out.

At this time, the anti Obama voter has surely made up his or her mind as to who they are voting for. They want a Republican in to stop him. It is safe to say the last 2 weeks did not sway any of these people.

However, the rest of the people who broke for Brown were still up in the air. Brown released his first ad and really started making a mark around New Year's. As we kicked into full campaign gear, Brown worked his ass off, played up his regular guy, moderate, independent All-American image, had EXCELLENT and effective ads and did not make one mistake.

Lets look at Coakley from the same time period: Starts on vacation, does not respond to a free bee when Brown invoked JFK to defend his tax cuts. All Coakley had to do was point out that the top rate was 90% in 1962 and 35% now, so a little different. And unlike Brown, JFK actually paid for his reductions in taxes by closing loopholes! Coakley never pointed out that Brown did not have a single policy paper, and did not feel the need to have one when asked. Coakley declined to campaign, scoffed at it, declined volunteers with a simple "we're confident" etc.

Easy to see how the rest of the people just tuning in felt the 1st guy was respecting them a little more than the 2nd gal. So combine that with the grim mood in general, and Brown's harping on Beacon Hill corruption(resonates with Democrats) and you get the people who just want to give the guy a shot. I met many life long Democrats, who are all for Obama, all for gay marriage, etc who voted for Brown because they liked the guy and admired the campaign he ran.

Obama plays a role in this, no doubt, the national mood does, no doubt. However, no way shape or form big enough to overcome a lead as big as Coakley had. Exit polls confirmed this.

 

[U2387]

I just meant in this forum.




LOL, Once again, it appears that defending Bush qualifies as spinning and ignoring anything that does not bode well for Bush or Republicans. Since you obviously don't know my history, I actually do have my own criticisms of Bush and Republicans.




I don't think your interested in facts considering the way you addressed my own post which had plenty.



I thought you said you were not discussing anything with him because he was not capable of "reasonable discussion"?

And Diamond, Harry Vest, etc do not exist in this forum? They most certainly do. Plus, that's irrelevant, as you are claiming that I deem anyone of opposing opinion incapable of rational discussion. I am just pointing out that conservatives and Republicans I know outside of you and Indy are perfectly capable of rational discussion. Does not matter whether they post here.

I have been through this many times with you.

There is a difference between defending Bush, and doing what you constantly do. That is misrepresent and take things out of context unreasonably to make Republicans look better. Only in your world could a poverty rate that keeps increasing under Bush versus one that keeps going down under Clinton mean that Bush policies did a better job on poverty.

I factually rebutted and explained every statistic you put out. The difference is my explaining versus your coming back with one line repetitions of the same thing. I actually explain why I interpret the statistics the way I do and why I think that is reasonable. Other posters read these back and forths.

And guess what Strongbow?? More people think I am the reasonable one than you, and not just the left leaning people. Multiple people have pointed out the flaws in your interpretations of things.

So unless you have something to add that is relevant to the thread, stop responding to me. You are the one, I remind you, that is constantly trying to make up your own forum rules about what is relevant to the discussion and what is not.

 

[U2387]

The average for the 1970s is incorrect. Here is the average unemployment rates for each of the past four decades:

70s: 6.22%
80s: 7.27%
90s: 5.76%
00s: 5.54% (the alleged decade from hell )

Add up the unemployment rates of all years with the first 3 numbers 1, 9 and 7 and divide by ten.

You will get 7.01%. Unless you even get the numbers from one of your partisan sources, which I would not put past you. Remember, you were the person who said official US government statistics on debt percentage of GDP in the 1990s were wrong.

Either way, shows that the Reagan recovery was no better in employment terms than the dreadful 70s.

 

[U2387]

We couldn't afford it, that's why it was stopped, common sense voters in Mass recognized this, and that's why they stopped it-it's that simple.

So, the current system we have now needs to be modified, streamlined and corrected,
NOT eliminated and replaced with something MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE that doesn't adequately fixed the problem and shackle us w something that we cannot afford.

This isn't rocket science, only fiscal soundness.

<>

For all its flaws, the Health Care bill is deficit neutral. It also will put a dent in costs, which will in turn put a dent in entitlements, the biggest driver of our deficits.

Modify, streamline and correct is what the main parts of this bill do.

Obama could have left the status quo in place.

He could have scrapped the entire system, started over, put in single payer, etc.

One extreme or the other.

He chose the middle ground.

That is a fact.

This bill keeps most of the current system intact, and builds on reform ideas that many across the spectrum agree have a good chance of succeeding. Such as exchanges, etc.

Remember, 98% of Americans, the only change they will see is lower costs.

 

[U2387]

Cause I can find freedom of speech in the Bill Of Rights. Still looking for marriage equality.

9th, 10th and 14th amendments.

Dealing with rights retained by people, states and equal protection.

You can argue gay marriage or contraception or whatever is not included in this, but how do you know without consulting your personal opinion?

These were put in by the framers of the Constitution and in the case of 14, by the reconstruction Congress, in order to make very clear that the constitution was not meant to limit other rights not here in mentioned. Remember, we were extremely skeptical of centralized governmental power at the time, having just risked our collective lives on it in a revolution with unsure prospects!!

Here is the problem with the conservative view of the Constitution, aside from the fact that they do not follow it themselves.

The conservative assumes that the only rights present in the Constitution are the ones that the framers wrote down on paper. Strict constructionist. All good, non activist judges should simply open the text, look at the amendment, see if the word is there, and then rule. Bam. The case is over. A modern day equivalent would be pressing "Control F." Read any Supreme Court decision. Especially those long ones by Scalia and Roberts. No one does this, its impossible. What is that activist Roberts doing writing anything but "its in the text" or "its not". We weren't asking for his opinion!!!

Little, minor Problem #1:How do we know the framers intended for us to do exactly as the text says and exactly as things were originally written at the time? Did they tell us that? Wouldn't people with so much faith in what the framers write down think that if said strict interpretation was so important, they would have written it down?! Do we even know what their intent was, absent the very open ended principles in the bill of rights?

Little, minor Problem#2:The amendments themselves. Look at them. The text itself requires interpretation by human beings. What constitutes free speech? Free expression? Is my giving someone the finger in a bar constitutionally protected free speech, or a provocation to assault? Are the cops trying to stop someone who is just giving their unpopular opinion, or are they trying to protect him from an angry mob about to kill him? What constitutes an unreasonable search? Can we go in your car but not into a container within it absent a separate warrant? The issues I mentioned are questions that have actually been raised by Supreme Court cases in the past. I hope you and Diamond see that looking at the text and nothing else in this situation will not tell us anything.

To my knowledge, there exists no addendum to the Bill of Rights in which the framers thought of how to handle every possible case coming under the amendments. How could they or the original text be counted on to, by themselves, provide answers to how we search a car, or under what circumstances the gov't may constitutionally read your e-mail? Unreasonable searches in person meant w/o a warrant. How do we apply unreasonable to telephones and e mail? Such things were not even invented when the Constitution was written. See how the broad, principles based amendments require application to numerous different situations over time?

We don't leave this interpretation to 9 Supremes because we want to or think they possess any kind of infinite wisdom. We do it because it is the most practical way to uphold the sovereignty of the majority while protecting the rights of an unpopular minority. How can you count on Congress(elected by a majority) to be receptive to unpopular blacks(1860) women(1900) or gays now? You can't. This judicial supremacy was made clear in Marbury V Madison, when most if not all of the framers were still alive! Where were they at the time, with all their concerns about activist judges legislating from the bench. Where were their predictions of doom? Did I skip school the day we were taught this to wait in line for HTDAAB?!!

The big, fundamental problem: Strict constructionist conservatives misunderstand what the Constitution itself is. The Constitution is not written to tell you what you can and cannot do, it is written to tell the GOVERNMENT what that can and cannot do.

We have the main articles of the constitution saying what the government can do: form an executive, legislative and judicial branch, raise and appropriate money, raise a military, make all necessary and proper laws to carry it out, etc.

The Federalists thought this was clear enough. The federal government can do this and no more. However, Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans say its not clear the gov't is limited in its power over the people unless we say so. So they do, and hence a bill of rights.

Notice, the Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no law...freedom of speech.... no law denying right to fair trial, shall not quarter troops, shall not deny counsel, shall not make you incriminate yourself, shall not infringe on right to arms for militia, shall not unreasonable search and seize, etc"

We are being told what the government CANT DO, NOT WHAT THE PEOPLE CAN. THIS IS NOT AN ALL INCLUSIVE LIST OF RIGHTS THE PEOPLE HAVE TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYTHING ELSE NOT MENTIONED.

Indy500, where do you find marriage in the Constitution at all? Do you find your straight marriage in there? Do you find the right to drive in there? The right to buy a computer? The right to eat, sleep or breathe? How could it be possible that the framers forgot such vital, fundamental rights? Its not, its just that conservatives don't understand the nature of the Constitution, despite their claims to hold it so dearly.

Anyone who claims they are against judicial activism, usually uses abortion. Well, forget about that, its one of many issues that have been decided upon. Gut check time. Does anyone here think that it should be illegal for consenting adults to use contraception? Should the government be able to sanction people who do this? Well, at least Connecticut was doing this as late as 1968, and it would not be outlawed w/o a supreme court decision called Griswold V Connecticut. I hope everyone, yes even Conservatives, can see this as an unreasonable intrusion on rights retained by the people! I mean, we all have sex. Maybe 1% never do it recreationally. If you want to argue "horrid judicial activism" here fine, but I never want to hear another "Republicans are better in bed" argument from anyone! John Ensign? Mark Foley? Larry Craig? David Vitter? Newt Gingrich? Do they think condoms are a horrible result of judicial activism, or an enabler of their fun?

Another thing, relevant to our discussion on the recent supreme court ruling on corporations/unions unlimited rights in our electoral system: conservative activism. Who exactly are the most activist judges? A short, quick read:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html

So whenever anyone, liberal or conservative tells you they will follow what is written down in the Constitution, and its original intent and not legislate from the bench, you are free to say "bullshit." If you don't believe me, e mail any law professor, liberal or conservative, and they will tell you the same thing. Conservative law experts would never make this argument, though they find it quite amusing and telling of the ignorance of our population in general, when Republicans use this argument successfully. They don't complain, but they have a good laugh out of it!

 

[U2387]

i think some of this is astute, but i think the victories in VA and NJ are vastly overblown as some sort of commentary on Obama. Creigh Deeds was an awful candidate (i live just over the Potomac in NoVA), so was Coakley, and Corzine was as corrupt as they come.

in elections, one makes a decision to pull a level, hence, all GWB had to do was beat Kerry, and that's what he did.

Agree. Especially when you consider that state governments are mostly decided on state issues.

In 2005 off year elections, Bush was very unpopular, but I think its safe to say Tim Kaine was elected Governor of VA based on his pledge to continue the good work that Mark Warner had done. NJ had Corzine in 05, many thought he was a different kind of innovative type Democrat, and the Republican candidate was a lightweight. I never called the 2005 VA and NJ elections referendums on Bush at the time, I called Bush's approval ratings referendums on Bush!

In 2009, the only federal election was NY 23, which the Democrat won.

This year, it was Brown the clown working his ass of and being lucky enough to run into Coak the joke.(Coakley)

Bush V Kerry, Bush on Top.

Obama V Palin, I think he is all set. Even today!

 

[U2387]

The word does not exist but you've been showed, I don't know probably a hundred times by many in here how it exists in the interpretation of the constitution, but I guess you covered your ears and shut eyes the same way you do with healthcare everytime...

Well, it does not exist in the constitution, but we have that little thing called the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal." Declaration of Independence being drafted by some of the same people who participated in the Constitutional Convention.

Seeing as we have got INDY to agree that it just may require interpretation, couldn't we see the original Bill of Rights, and its proclamation that : "NO PERSON" Congress shall not deny "ANYONE" the right to free spech....etc as applying to everyone equally?

The answer, throughout case law, has been yes! Should it apply to white men who do not own land? Yes. Women?Yes Blacks? Yes. Gays? Yes, numerous discrimination cases brought by gay people have been upheld. Congress has passed laws outlawing sexual orientation based hate crimes.

In fact, the answer became so clear to those reading and interpreting the Constitution that, less than 100 years after it was written, we wrote it down in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution! So, since 1865, we have used the world "equality" in the Constitution.

The framers did not apply it to everyone, but they made the equality principle pretty damn clear.

 

[deep]

Let's not forget Brown's Victory Speech.

"My daughters are available."

 

[U2387]

Its clear now your making up stuff about other people in the forum. I have criticized Bush and Republicans in here before. Where have I lied about Obama? "Think they have won"? This is not a game, its a discussion.

I said I have never seen it. All I have seen is you trying to argue about how objective conditions under Bush were the way you say they were. Remember, I between the 2 of us, we have never discussed a single policy, just your inability to fact the truth.That to me was a pretty good indication that you would do anything to make this guy look good. If you have some criticisms, good for you. I am glad to have my criticisms of the Democrats as well.

Never said you did not criticize him in any way.

I am not making anything up about you or anyone else.

I wouldn't know, I am assuming you have a life outside the forum!

The point I was making was that you think you can come with your BS repetitions of your spin on statistics and call the discussion over. I am well aware of the fact that its not a game. I know the mods do not assign points to certain arguments. How could I possibly think that it was a game if you are still here posting? You'd be long gone if it were a game with points assigned for good, reasonable, logical, fact supported arguments!

In the case of INDY, he thinks a legitimate response to facts is to post talking points that he does not explain. He will never tell any of us where Obama's policies represent the far left, or how interpreting the Constitution is somehow contrary to the Constitution itself.

Neither of you really understand the issues, otherwise you would not feel the need to spin them w/o explanation and he would not feel the need to duck them completely.

 

[U2387]

You're right. After almost a year of campaigning nationwide, the president still couldn't spell out what he wanted for health care reform. The public option was supposed to be the cornerstone, but oh, he could do without it.

Instead of leading, he completely farmed out his health care bill to Harry and Nancy. Shockingly, Harry and Nancy came up with bad legislation with backdoor shenanigans piled on top to bribe their own members. And the public is starting to notice, with the last few governorships, and now Brown's win in blue Massachusetts as the exclamation point.

Well, read Obama's original campaign Health Care plan. It was actually mostly word for word from Kerry's 2004 plan, which I believe he originally took from Biden.

There is no mention of a public option of any kind. It was not a cornerstone of anything Obama proposed.

Where he really screwed up, in my opinion, was not in letting Harry and Nancy write the legislation, of course, Congress has to write the laws. He can't just introduce something and say "take it or else, no amendments" Hillary already tried that. The Democrats in Congress threw it out. So he had to farm it out.

Where I agree with you is he farmed it out too much, to the point where he lost control over it. How hard would it have been for him to call up Pelosi, ask her in for tea, discuss the public option she was insisting on? Something like this:

Barack: "Well, Nancy, you know the public option is only going to be used by 1% of the population, and hence, does not have anywhere near enough market power to bring down costs like the left and the Unions claim.:

Nancy:"Ok, that will certainly be a relief to those Blue Dogs if I drop that, tell me more!"

Barack: "This will open us up to bullshit charges that it is a government takeover of health care, you know, socialism, etc. Not true, but a powerful resonating message when Rush keeps repeating it."

Nancy:"You're right, it makes sense, its gone! Harry never liked it anyway."

Think about it. No summer long screaming of socialism while Obama sits home and does not respond and take control of the message. The public option was never a part of Obama's plan, nor is it material to achieving the goals of health care reform. It was a stupid distraction, thank you, Nancy!

I think Obama thought that if Pelosi wanted a public option, appease her for now to get it through the House, and then he can take it into the Senate with the intent of dropping it. He probably viewed this as a way to compromise and grab Nelson, Snowe, Collins and retiring Republicans like Voinovich and Mel Martinez. He should have know the Republicans had no good faith intentions of bipartisanship, they told him so when they opposed the stimulus in lock step.

So in summary, in the crucial run up to the debate, Obama miscalculated twice. First in not letting Pelosi know the public option is not necessary and not supported in the Senate, and second in thinking it would be ok as a compromise bargaining chip.

Then he made 2 more deadly moves over the summer:
1.)Not defending the bill at all. He let Rush and Hannity and Glenn Beck grab it, the Tea baggers run with it, and we never looked back. He should have kicked the PR machine into high gear, like Bush did w/ Social Security privatization(bad policy, that's why it went nowhere, but good campaigning).

2.)Thank you to whoever mentioned it earlier, the comments about the Cambridge Police right as he tried to get a hold of the debate. THE SINGLE STUPIDEST THING HE HAS DONE OR SAID HIS WHOLE PRESIDENCY. This was a case of a knee jerk reaction to defend your friend, and speaking before you get the facts. If my buddy got arrested for playing a game of "piss off the cop" I sure as hell would not call out the cops on national tv. I would say "my friend was a jerk, but we're still friends, he's not a bad guy overall, and this is between him and the Cambridge PD." It played right into the hands of the stereotypes, too. Entitled Professor flipping out and calling a hard working Cop doing his job in good faith a racist. Pres. Obama, you let your friends make comments like that on their own, without the backing of the White House! Obama of course had to backtrack on everything he said, and invite Crowley to the White House for a high profile visit to finally get rid of the controversy.

2 weeks elapse with that being the focus, Rush keeps hitting on Health care, which BTW, people like Henry Louis Gates are supporting!

 

[Muldfeld]

You're right. After almost a year of campaigning nationwide, the president still couldn't spell out what he wanted for health care reform. The public option was supposed to be the cornerstone, but oh, he could do without it.

Instead of leading, he completely farmed out his health care bill to Harry and Nancy. Shockingly, Harry and Nancy came up with bad legislation with backdoor shenanigans piled on top to bribe their own members. And the public is starting to notice, with the last few governorships, and now Brown's win in blue Massachusetts as the exclamation point.

I think Nancy Pelosi would have liked a public option, but Bill Moyers' reports show how Max Baucus never did and he's received massive sums of money from the health insurance industry. I love how Bill Maher blew up on Conan about it:
"Obama needs to get tough with this Gang of Six -- these Senators holding up the public option. This guy, Max Baucus needs to wake up one morning and find an intern's head in his bed!" He was referring to that scene in "The Godfather" with the horse's head. Apolitical Conan was shocked. It was great!

I never liked Harry Reid, though. Kinda slimy... Though I'd take him over any leading Republican any day. Buncha lying whiners!