Home / Blogs / AngryDem's blog
Visitors' civil comments encouraged.
Women's History Month Linkage
What Martha Coakley needs to do to win
Martha Coakley is in a tough spot right now. Some polls have her 15 points ahead of her Republican opponent. Other polls have her neck and neck and some polls even state that Republican Scott Brown is leading Coakley by a few points. All of the polls have shown that Brown is gaining traction and momentum in the final days before the January 19th election.
Public Policy Polling has Republican Scott Brown leading Martha Coakley 48-47. There is also news that the corrupt Obamacrats will stall Brown's swearing in if he wins the election to get the Obamacare bill passed.
Bill Clinton has been unleashed to save Coakley with a fundraiser on January 15th, but the Big Dawg can only do so much.
The reasons for the shift in public opinion are many. Martha Coakley deserves some blame because she, like Ned Lamont, did not campaign after she won the nomination. Coakley was not as bad as Lamont, who went on vacation, but Coakley essentially ceded two weeks to the hard driving Scott Brown who campaigned furiously and and aired advertisements.
But what has really hurt Martha Coakley is the utterly ugly health care scam she says she will vote FOR and which Scott Brown says he, as the 41st Republican filibuster supporting senator, will vote AGAINST and thereby kill the odious legislation.
Martha Coakley has also turned to the Kennedy clan to try and save her campaign. This ugly situation is really hurting her. The PPP poll and Dimocrats believe tying Coakley to Ted Kennedy will help but we believe that is a delusional act of suicide (we will discuss this below).
But in the past few days, a truly ugly and revealing event has cast Coakley as a villain. That event is the Dimocratic threat/promise to disenfranchise the will of the voters of Massachusetts if Scott Brown wins the general election.
...
Coakley is in danger of running against the people of Massachusetts and for the corrupt Dimocratic establishment. Coakley must understand that getting in the political car with the Kennedy clan is a big mistake. Massachusetts voters want – CHANGE.
...This double talk nonsense and obfuscation is killing Martha Coakley. She won the primary because she stood on principle and AGAINST the health care scam. Now she is in danger of turning herself into a tool of Dimocratic corruption.
For Hillary supporters and those who reject the Obama Dimocratic Party of endless Obaminations, the Massachusetts election is and will be a victory. If Martha Coakley wins she will win because of the help Bill Clinton provides and because she supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Martha Coakley, during the primaries, ignored the Dimocratic establishment in Massachusetts and supported Hillary. The Kennedys cannot stand her nor can the rest of the Dimocratic establishment in Massachusetts.
If Scott Brown wins, the entire Obama Obaminations Program Schedule (OOPs) blows up into dust. If Scott Brown wins and Dimocrats try to stonewall him from taking the oath of office there will be anger in the electorate we have never witnessed since the Civil War. If Scott Brown wins the Obama health care scam will lie on a mortuary slab along with Michelle’s sleeves.
In either case the NObama coalition will be strengthened. All Dimocratic elected officials must now be scared. If Massachusetts is in play…
Coakley is now faced with a decision that could make or break her political future in Massachusetts. She should go back to her original campaign promise of opposing Obamacare with its anti-choice provisions. She should stand up to the corrupt Obamacratic Party in order to win as a leader in the Democratic Party.
- AngryDem's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Check out:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Moveonorg-Help-us-save-Ted-Kennedys-seat-81022147.html
http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/01/09/move-on-rolls-into-massachusetts-to-save-martha-coakley/
and has a good chance of claiming a narrow victory, but in a good election year Brown shouldn't have even had a chance. It's Massachusetts. If a Democrat in one of the most liberal states in the nation is in a dead heat with a Republican, it spells trouble for the Democrats. It is still very possible for Brown to upset the race and win. Coakley betrayed some of the people who voted for her in the primary especially because she promised them not to support the health care scam.
that's probably why Schumer and (Conrad?) dropped out ... Obama directed the DNC to cut them off because their poll numbers were down. Remember Obama trying to get NY Gov Patterson out of the race. He would rather have people quit than compete and lose.
Oh, but she probably is stuck supporting Obamacare because Obama now runs the DNC, and she needs the DNC campaign money to run.
LOL: "If Scott Brown wins the Obama health care scam will lie on a mortuary slab along with Michelle’s sleeves."
See my comment below.
How Martha voting against the health care legislation--legislation that the extremely popular late Sen. Kennedy championed and would have voted for--would help her in any way with the Democratic voters she needs to get to the polls on Election Day. Announcing her opposition would be pretty much suicidal. Martha can pull this out, if she reminds everyone that she is a continuation of the proud progressive legacy of Ted Kennedy. Any politician who would actually listen to the insanely counterproductive recommendations of "Hillaryis44" should not be working in elective politics. Especially when that site is openly advocating the merits of a Coakley loss.
I was wondering where you've been
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
Hey Hamp. Some health issues all at once with my mom and my sister have kept me busy for awhile. Please send us good vibes!
Helping with my 93 yr old dadwho has slipped off his rocker. Looking at homes today. Sucks
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
Hamp, what happened to in-home care? I know that was your first choice. It doesn't sound like it's going well. I'm so sorry.
Just a note...I'll be gone till Thursday. We're headed back to Mayo today. Russ has a checkup for his lung infection plus tests and consult on his aneurysm and heart tumor on Tuesday and Wednesday. We'll take the laptop and I'll check in if possible to see how you're doing but it's a really busy schedule.
When are you coming back to the Hampster cage? I miss the sound of your wheel.
WHERETHEHELL IS MY ERA???
So sorry you're dealing with such a stressful and emotionally difficult issue. Sending you and yours good thoughts...
with the health insurance reform and a lot of women gave Coakley money because she promised not to vote for any bill that contained anti-choice provisions. So regardless of whether or not you agree with the health legislation, she made a huge flip-flop that will probably cost her some voters. Maybe not enough to lose, but it reveals a lot about her trustworthiness and character. If enough people like the ones on this thread at TalkLeft stay home, it could become an extremely tight race.
also wrote a post about Coakley's flip flop last month
I clicked on your TL link, Angry Dem, and found the comments you referred to. Decided to post one of my own (for the first time in over a year) but after I'd logged in and tried to go back to it, the story had disappeared.
Looks like intolerance is still alive and well at TalkLeft.
WHERETHEHELL IS MY ERA???
senior White House official (cough cough.)
Kennedy did not vote for the current waste of paper the Democrats are trying to push as health
careinsurance reform. Nothing like it.Plus, people who don't live in Mass. don't understand that large parts of the state don't love the Kennedys and don't faint in angst over every tremor of their troubled brows. Remember how much Ted's endorsement of Obama helped him in the primaries? He helped him to 10-point loss. If Brown is making any real gains (and that's a big if), it's likely to be among the people who don't really like or care what Kennedy's health plan was, and even less now that the current plan is nothing like what Ted proposed.
But turning against the health
care planinsurance company giveaway wouldn't help Coakley much at this point. Mass. voters in poll after poll favor Obama's plan at higher rates than most of the rest of the country, and usually over 50%. Also, much of her corporate funding is coming from the insurance companies (a big industry in Mass and New England).Coakley's problem is in two parts: 1) this is an off-month, single-office election; and 2) much of her base is severely disappointed with her astonishingly quick turnaround on keeping further abortion restrictions out of the health
care planinsurance company giveaway. It's likely to be a very low turnout election, which tends to favor the side that is better organized or has great passion on their side. The Republicans and anti-hcr factions in Mass. are getting pretty hyped up about defeating Coakley. Coakley has a pretty strong organization, though, statewide. There's a crapshoot factor here just because in a low turnout situation, it's much less about overall public sentiment than about a bunch of polls trying to gauge likely voter sentiments. The models for assessing likely voter status vary widely from pollster to pollster and get iffy when turnout is so low.On the second part, probably not a lot of her supporters are disappointed enough to support Brown. But 'a lot' is a relative term; at least some must be like me and are just staying home, which compounds the low-turnout factor. Some Partizaners may remember I was very supportive of Coakley. I was even more so after she was the only primary candidate to stand up and say she would oppose the health care bill if it retained the Stupak language. When her first act as proto-Senator was to reverse that by agreeing to the Nelson compromise (better by a degree, but that's a degree that can only be measured with an electron microscope), that was it. I won't support Brown, but I'm no longer voting for pols who won't stand up for me, and esp. not on an issue as important as reproductive rights when what's at stake is a horrible bill that will be worse than the status quo.
Actually, though, I will be gobsmacked if Coakley loses.
You explain the situation in MA excellently and sound a lot like the people at sites like TalkLeft, The Confluece, Corrente, and Hillaryis44. I don't think most of the people at these sites are endorsing Brown. They are just apathetic about the election results because Coakley has let them down. A very few former Coakley supporters, most likely Independents, might end up voting for Brown because that's what some people do in an act of protest when a candidate on their side betrays a promise. It's their choice. Most of the people like Valhalla and at TalkLeft will simply not vote and that is very bad news for Coakley. The woman vote was crucial to her win in the primaries when most of the Democratic establishment endorsed Capuano.
Another note about the PPP poll. I saw on their twitter feed that the "Globe has Coakley up 15..their poll's field period started 5 days before ours..could make a diff. when things are moving fast". So it says a lot about Brown's momentum when he can close a possible 10-15 point gap in less than a week. A lot can happen in a week.
I guess after reading your comment, there is no use for Coakley to turn against the health insurance scam now. Not because of Ted Kennedy but because her very campaign is being funded by those health insurance companies as well as the DNC which has become the party of corporate America and the health insurance companies. It is likely that when Coakley won the nomination, she got orders from the top of the Party to support the bill or face serious consequences.
She's between the proverbial rock and hard place. She has, in the past, fought very hard for reproductive rights, enough so that I think her statements about her beliefs are genuine. I'm sure she's getting the full-court press from both insurance co. lobbyists (which is the chuck wagon from which almost all DC gets most of their money from these days) and the DNC. It would take extraordinary courage for a pre-junion-senator to stand up to that.
However, sympathy is a bad basis for voting for someone. Neither I nor other supporters put her in the position of supporting anti-abortion restrictions in the health care bill; the DNC did. Many of us had very strong support based on her clear and strong statements that she would stand up for reproductive rights.
Also, hard as it would be to go up against the DNC in her position, she put herself forward as tough negotiator. Well, she could have threatened to hold out as Olympia Snowe did until the Democrats watered down the already squishy and questionable public option. She may not have gotten the Nelson language reversed, but she might have at least gotten something else. For instance, the bar on lifetime caps could be put back in the bill, or taxing the uber-wealthy to pay for insurance co. wealth transfer, instead of taxing middle-class health care plans. (which man, I just don't get why Democrats don't see how blazingly unpopular they will become once the middle-class starts losing coverage and having to pay pumped up premiums, esp. since they get nothing in return for at least 4 years, and that's only if the few measly 'restrictions' in the bill aren't eviscerated by Republicans or loopholed into uselessness by the insurance cos.). Or a cost control mechanism (ANY cost control mechanism). Or jettisoning the Medicare cuts (evisceration) panel. Hell, lollipops for some schoolkids. Anything.
But she didn't even feel she had to or could make a show of standing up for us. Not even a "it was a heartwrenching decision but...." I mean, that used to part of every politician's repetoire. But now none of them even feel that they have to fake wanting to do the right thing.
That says a lot. So sympathy doesn't cut it.
At this point, I don't want either of them to win.
between two candidates they dislike.
Maybe you should take Barack Obama's advice and vote for change.
WHERETHEHELL IS MY ERA???
Why is Kennedy's hand-picked successor Paul Kirk voting for it? Why is the Kennedy family endorsing the legislation, and Coakley? Seems they have a pretty good handle on how the late Senator would have voted.
I don't live in Mass anymore, but I did in Boston for 4 years a decade ago, and still have family in western MA. So yeah, I get that not everyone worships the Kennedys. But Boston turnout is critical to Coakley's success, and Boston is and will always be enamored of the Kennedys.
I keep seeing this argument made, that somehow the best metric of Ted Kennedy's influence in MA is how his endorsement of Obama played in the 2008 MA primary. Seems a bit narrow, considering his vast electoral and legislative successes over a legendary career. Basically, endorsements rarely if ever have a substantive impact on a race anyway.
health insurance scam if he were alive doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean Democratic voters should get behind the legislation or any candidate who supports it.
You need to wrap your head around the fact that 1) A lot of progressives, women, and single payer advocates do not support this legislation and 2) Coakley was against the bill with abortion restrictions before she was for it.
If you personally believe that this health
careinsurance reform with restrictions on abortion and taxes on small business owners and unions is good for the American people then your choice of candidates in 2010 and 2012 will be completely different from most of us here. Ted Kennedy was not perfect in any way but I'm sick of people using his memory to push Democratic voters into voting for candidates who get elected to work against what Ted Kennedy actually stood for - Medicare for All.I agree that just because Kennedy would have likely supported this legislation, doesn't mean Democratic voters should automatically support it, too. But his support should encourage liberals to think more deeply about why a liberal lion like Ted Kennedy would have supported compromised legislation of this kind. If anyone understood the need not to make the perfect the enemy of the good, it was Ted Kennedy.
I know that already. I also am aware that many more progressives than not support this legislation, because they have an acute understanding of legislative history, and how the initial passage of weak progressive bills has typically improved over time. There is a good reason why every single Democratic Senator is supporting this legislation, and why every single Republican Senator is opposed to it. Hint: it's not because Democrats suddenly are opposed to quality comprehensive health care legislation, and the GOP is suddenly in support.
I believe that a bill that extends hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for lower income people to purchase affordable health insurance is a good bill. I believe that a bill that bans pre-existing conditions is a good bill. I believe that a bill that mandates coverage is a good bill, because it will keep the pool of enrollees high enough to keep costs down overall. Remember when Obama was attacked during the primaries by Hillary supporters for NOT having a mandate? Now that he picks up her good idea, the same people trash him for it. If that isn't opportunistic positioning, I don't know what is.
I hate the Nelson language on abortion. I hate the Stupak language on abortion. This isn't an abortion bill. The Hyde amendment already satisfies whatever Nelson and Stupak claim they need satisfying. I am against the "Cadillac healthcare plan tax". I don't see why new taxes aren't focused on higher income earners rather than premium insurance plans, many of whom negotiated away better wages in return for those plans.
That said, I don't see how voting against Martha Coakley, or staying home, is going to improve the awful abortion language forced into this bill by conservative Democrats. I don't see how winnowing down the tiny majority currently available to pass comprehensive healthcare legislation, by voting for GOPers or withholding support from Dems, is going to somehow magically produce a more liberal bill. We have the majority we have to do this right now. We won't next year, or likely in 2012, or 2014, or 2016. That may be acceptable to you. It is not to me.
Yes, you are right: my choice of candidates in 2010 and 2012 will likely be quite different from the folks here, just like it was in 2008, when the majority of Partizaners voted for anti-choice, anti-health care expansion McCain/Palin, and I did not. No matter how hard one tries to square it, black is not white, right is not left, and up is not down.
And you say this in the same post where you agreed that Kennedy would have supported the current legislation. Could it be that the remaining supporters of this legislation also want Medicare for All; they just want to build towards it over time when they'll have the votes (they simply don't now, as you can admit), rather than flushing the entire effort down the drain because it wasn't delivered perfectly in the first shot?
There is a lot of arm-twisting behind the scenes. Obama controls DNC funds, and can cut off Senators who need those funds for re-election campaigns.
And this is nothing like Social Security, which was a good bill to begin with and EXPANDED over time, not "corrected" over time like this health insurance bailout bill will need to be. Social Security did not mandate citizens to buy a product from a private industry they've recently grown to hate. Social Security passed by a much bigger margin in Congress than this bill did.
The original SS Act excluded most women and minorities. It excluded about half of the American workforce. It contained no disability or medical coverage of any kind. Its payouts were paltry. It contained no spousal or dependents' payments. If that is what constitutes a "good bill" for you, you can see why I am also open to the idea of starting with an imperfect bill, getting it passed, and growing from there.
If private insurance, highly regulated, and heavily subsidized, can offer quality, affordable health insurance to every American, it is worth it to me. Until we have the votes for public insurance, it will have to do. A lot of people on the left of late (Fire Dog Lake, etc.), seem to have succumbed to the notion that the health care fight is actually just a proxy for kicking the $hit out of the insurance industry. While that is a satisfying concept, I believe it pales in comparison to the moral right of Americans to receive universal coverage, albeit patchwork, painful in places, and over a period of years.
A meaningless standard if there ever was one. Do you actually think this bill would IMPROVE, if it had REPUBLICAN support? Just what kind of concessions do you think would have to be made to obtain that support? Do you think the bill would move in a more LIBERAL direction, with the assent of Orrin Hatch and Jim DeMint?
Read about it: http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/heal-thy-people.
This bill in Congress would make insurance companies a larger, and permanent, part of our healthcare system.
Am glad you agree this is nothing like Social Security.
That's great. Please explain how you would get something like the San Francisco plan actually passed through the current U.S. Congress and onto the president's desk.
As I already outlined, I don't agree at all. The situation is very similar, as I already outlined.
national.
The current health insurance expansion and skyrocketing premiums bill will start out by expanding the health insurance companies' role in our health care system. After this bill passes it will wipe out Healthy San Francisco (how could it not) and prohibit similair non-insurance health plans that focus on care rather than insurance from taking root elsewhere.
See here http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/1/11/151619/029 .
So if your plan is expensive, it will be taxed 40%. If you are over 40, your plan is likely to be expensive, and thus will be termed a "Cadillac" plan, that is taxed at 40%.
we have no idea how Teddy Kennedy would have voted on this mess. We don't even know what form the mess would have taken if Teddy Kennedy had lived to see it through.
I'm sick and tired of people tossing Kennedy's name out in support of a cause as if that's all it takes to convince someone the cause is just. Teddy Kennedy was a heluva senator but he was also a womanizing tippler. The man was no saint and it's time we quit trying to canonize him.
End of postings from here. Laptop on hotel WiFi runs like a snail. Frustration level is off the scale. Hugs, all.
WHERETHEHELL IS MY ERA???
Have a safe trip Creeper.
And great point - if Ted Kennedy were still in the Senate (they said last year the health care debate would have benefited from his presense, even though he was still alive, he just was not active) the bill would probably not look like the one the Senate passed.
And even if Ted Kennedy WOULD HAVE supported the Senate bill - the man had a brain tumor! So should we really be trusting his judgement?
(Sick humor, sorry.)
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
here is one http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/11/824018/-Obama-forgets-Youtube .
is near painful.
I could almost feel sorry for 'em....almost.
WHERETHEHELL IS MY ERA???
-- and delightful when they pop right up again. h/t - TGW
I know it is the DC Examiner, but this is disgusting.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yevw63f
With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is at right (click here for a better view).
The invitation and the guest list looks real to me. This is extremely disappointing and a sad day for the Democratic Party. Does Obama and the Democrats want more Americans to distrust the government? They might think they are winning now with money flowing in from the health insurance industry but this will harm real advocates on the Left who are working for a single payer health care system in America.
You said: "Does Obama and the Democrats want more Americans to distrust the government? They might think they are winning now with money flowing in from the health insurance industry but this will harm real advocates on the Left who are working for a single payer health care system in America."
The Democratic Party died in May of 2008 in Florida. The name was retained to aid the bait and switch that was fostered by malcontents, who have embraced a far left ideology that is far from liberal in the traditional sense of the word, since they seek to limit our liberties.
Bury it, because the corpse stinks.
Fire Dog Lake: WaPo Predictably Carries Spin Blaming Coakley for Obama's Problems.
Funny - wouldn't you think party strategists would wait until Coakley were defeated to leak this to the press? And if she weren't defeated, they wouldn't have to leak anything. Wouldn't party strategists think hey, if we leak this to the press just before election day, it might HURT Coakley's chances in this tight race? Odd, that.
which is why she should've stood by her campaign promise not to support the health bill. At least she would've had women and the single payer advocates energized. The FDL post makes a good point, though
How soon they fall. Not even at his one-year anniversary yet.
So much for Obama's coattails.I'm not motivated the help the Dems this year the way I was in the past contributing money, doing door to door GOTV, and volunteering my time at the campaign office making calls. But gotdamnit this is Obama's party and the people who brung him argued last year that he'd bring out the vote for other Democratic candidates. Coakley broke a promise to her supporters to get behind Obamacare and he can't get his ass on a short plane ride to Boston? I remember Obama didn't campaign for Democrat Jim Martin in Georgia's run-off election last year. Obama has never shown much commitment to the Party or downticket Dems. Vote this guy out, please. He's like a tumor on the Democratic Party.
wow that is surprising he won't help her campaign. Where did you see this?
"So Much For Obama's Coattails" It will take you to the link. Or click here: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/obama_has_no_pl.html
well maybe he's staying away because he thinks he might hurt rather than help, who knows.
if he campaigns for Coakley and she still loses. Or maybe he still holds a grudge that she was a Clinton supporter or that she was initially against his health care bill. He didn't campaign for Jim Martin who was, coincidentally, a Hillary Clinton supporter. But honestly, who the f*%# knows why Obama hasn't done more for the Democratic Party. Who the f*%# knows.
But it is true that he might hurt her than help. He didn't exactly help Corzine. After all, today's CBS poll has Obama's approval rating at a dismal 46% http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry...
All are strong possibilities!
Esp. if he showed up anywhere in latte liberal territory (Boston, Cambridge, Brookline). It's instant big bucks within that 'triangle'. That's why presidential candidates spend so much time in Mass. during campaigns (relatively). I never understood why any Democratic presidential candidate would spend even 2 seconds campaigning in Mass. when it's the one state where any Democrat is virtually assured a win. Then I read an article a year or two ago that said that Boston is one of the largest fundraising cities for Democrats. And within those 3 towns (plus Newton and couple of other high $ communities), support for Obama is probably close to 100%. So I think, Obama campaigning for Coakley would be a totally different situation than Corzine.
But Obama was never really a supporter of the Democratic Party as such. He barely spoke the word Democrat during the campaigns and did virtually no down-ticket campaigning. (Hillary, of course, worked her butt off campaigning both for him and just about every semi-decent-downticket Dem in sight). Almost all of the energy of the OFA has gone to building an Obama machine, not the party infrastructure. I doubt it really matters all that much whether Brown wins to the DLC or Obama; they'll just giveaway more concessions to the Republicans so they can say they passed something. And bonus, they can blame any further weakening on Republicans, as if it's a bug, not a feature.
On another point -- that comemnt thread at FDL really bothered me because although many seem to be starting anti-Kool Aid therapy, they still focus on Rahm as the source for all the inadequacies of Democrats' FAIL responses to the economy and to health care. As if Emmanuel is president, rather than his boss.
with Coakley.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31352.html
So Politico obtained a new poll. Funny thing, but that article does not mention the date of the poll and the numbers polled.
that it will likely be a close race based on turnout and decided by Independents. The Daily Beast said that Independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans combined in Massachusetts. Both parties are realizing this and pouring more money than they intended into the race. However, the poll obtained by Politico sampled 49 percent self-identified Democrats, 25 percent Independents and 24 percent Republicans.
here:
But now progressive groups are sending additional resources to Coakley, the Democratic National Committee is dispatching a veteran press operative to Boston and party officials are paying for polls to assess whether she may actually have a close race on her hands.
In other words, the DNC is still shaking all the trees to make sure they've squeezed the last bits out of the little people, before they wake up to the whole scam. Wouldn't want to leave money on anyone else's table.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116
I accept that's a real quote Layla. One thing that is so frustrating is that certain people see Obama as takign positions, but to a lot of us we see him as someone who doesn't take a position. Or he takes the position of those in mainstream power, like Wall Street, Big Pharma, Health Insurance lobbyists, etc.
Well if you support Obama and you see him as doing a great job, that's good. No complaints here.
Interesting quote from that article here:
Coincidently the post is titled Obama Fail http://www.correntewire.com/obama_fail_underemployment_rate_173
Because Obama did mention "reforming" Social Security on the campaign trail.
This sounds like the opposite of arm-twisting - only taking positions when you're likely to win. This study/score is kind of weird.
Instapundit shares that today was selected for the delivery of a moneybomb to Scott Brown’s election to the Senate. The goal was to raise $500,000 in one day, because the GOP is not supporting Brown financially. The push was on, because people want his vote to stop the Obama Health Care Bill. From what I read, he took in over a million dollars today.
The special election is a week away from today, from what I understand. Is it just me or are others riveted by this? I just think my whole future will be different depending on how this special election turns out (even though the Dems claim they'll pass the 60 votes even if Coakley loses.)
Also - what do you think of Rahm's chances at winning Mayor of Chicago, should he choose to run (and should Daley choose not to run)?
I thought the GOP was supporting Brown financially. I've read that conservative PACs are buying a lot of airtime and pushing people to vote for Brown because Coakley would rubberstamp the health care bill. If Coakley loses it will be because of the Obama health care scam.
I just visited Brown's website and he raised $1,303,302.50 in one day.
Brown is getting money from people who want to stop HC reform. People have read the stuff that is slowly leaking out. This bill is simply a giant payoff to insurance and Pharma. In addition, they plan to tax the hell out of the middle class so people with cadillac plans pay an enormous tax (40%) for it.
People realize that the change they voted in could kill them, literally. With this plan, as you get older, your health care does get limited or you have to jump through hoops to get it. Also, as you get older, you may pay more for it. (Gee, Grandma could be on the street, because of the Democrat Party, which isn't really the Democrat Party since party leaders killed it in May 2008 and stole the name for its socialist agenda backed by corporate elitists.)
These people should all be impeached; they do not represent voters.
Clean the House (and the Senate).