(and it will be Brown), Jon Stewart, once again, understands and tells us all about it. Democrats, you blew it! (I was for Rep. Mike Capuano, who would have made a much better candidate than Coakley has been.)
But all is NOT lost. The Democrats are still in control of the House and Senate. Watch Stewart remind us of this fact:
Josh Marshall over at TPM agrees with me:
I don't mean to get ahead of things. But I cannot help noting one blazingly obvious fact. If Michael Capuano had been the Democratic nominee, there's simply no way we'd have gotten to this point (I used to live in his district). No way. Absolutely, no way. That is not simply to say that Coakley has run a bad campaign. That seems obvious; but I'm always a bit dubious of evaluations of a campaign (obvious as it may seem in the moment) because it's very hard to view as a struggling campaign as a well run one. And I'm not saying Capuano is the second coming. But Coakley is just culturally and temperamentally not suited to the politics of 2009/2010.
She did win a primary. So it's not like party bosses forced the choice, at least not in the narrow sense. But there's got to be some reckoning and thought as to why the Dems ended up with this nominee. I don't think the answer will be a pleasing one.
39 comments:
LMAO Spin City!
I am with Ed Schultz....STEAL THE DAMN ELECTION....
It worked in 2000 for the Republicans in Florida...
BOSTON (The Borowitz Report) - Firing up voters on the eve of the special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat, Republican candidate Scott Brown spoke at a campaign rally today, proclaiming, "With your help, our dream of depriving millions of health care is within reach."
"Let's send a message, Massachusetts!" Mr. Brown exhorted the crowd. "Let's tell people across the country that if they want health coverage, they are shit out of luck!"
"It worked in 2000 for the Republicans in Florida..."
Yeah. A diabolical plot to get enough votes in enough states to win the Electoral College total. Successful, just like those other election-thieves FDR, FDR, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter. Oooh. that Jimmy Carter!
I just read an interesting poll by Public Policy Polling out of Raleigh NC. It was a Mass. poll taken last Jan. 9 of this year. Google it to find it. Question 5 is particularly relevant to today's Sen. election in Mass.
Q5 Do you approve or disapprove of Barack
Obama’s job performance? If you approve,
press 1. If you disapprove, press 2. If you’re
not sure, press 3.
Approve .......................................................... 44%
Disapprove...................................................... 43%
Not Sure.......................................................... 13%
How interesting that Mr. Obama can't even break 50% approval in Mass.! It seems there are a few cracks appearing in the marbleized bastion of liberal Mass.
Jim,
The PPP is just one poll. I just checked in with Nate Silver's blog Five Thirty Eight, which was the most accurate during the 2008 election and the other polls showing Obama's favorability numbers in Massachusetts are these:
Poll Apprv. Disapprv.
MRG 47 42
Suffolk 48 43
PPP 44 43
Rasmussen 57 41
Anyway, I remember when Bush's approval numbers were in the 20s, how his supporters admired him for not paying attention to them and doing "what was right for the country" despite the low approval ratings.
So we Democrats will continue to support Mr. Obama and admire him for not worrying about poll numbers and for doing what is right for the country.
BTW: Massachusetts is a PURPLE state. It is NOT the bluest of blue. The media are pushing this lie. Massachusetts has sent more Republican governors to the State House than they have Democrats, and they have sent more Republican senators to the US Congress than they have Democrats.
At the local level, yes, it is blue, in statewide elections, not so.
It has been this way throughout our political history. Google it.
Mass voters, please keep us posted here in Ohio!! We are hanging on every word!!!!
Go Scott Brown!!!!!
Voters under age 30 who voted for the President in such droves now get a lesson in what happens when a lefty President joins forces with a lefty Congress. With stars in their eyes, they couldn't imagine the miseries that would follow, and now they don't have to imagine them because they're right out in the open for all to see.
There is going to be Hope and Change after all.
Oh Dmarks, I just knew that comment about the 2000 election would get a response from you! :0
To anonymous reader who left this comment at 4:48 PM:
"WHAT A SCHMUCK YOU ARE TAO"
i deleted this comment because you are engaging in name-calling and making a personal attack against another reader. And if you continue to do, all your comments will be deleted.
To the Anonymous posters so enthused.
After tonight's election results Mr. Obama will still be the president and the Democrats will still be the majority party in Congress.
George W. Bush had less of a majority and he was able to pass every single piece of legislation he wanted. Remember.
Coakley's handlers were more powerful than Capuano's Shaw. It happens in Illinois all the time. Thus, we end up with creeps like Blagojevich. Our saving grace is the Illinois republican party is run by morons.
Apparently this isn't so in Massachusettes.
TAO's been called lots worse than "schmuck" Octo. And Dmarks probably appreciated the guy calling TAO a schmuck after TAO baited Dmarks with the election stealing comment. Relax my eight legged friend.
Shaw: There's an ongoing thread on Sue's "Hello Mr. President" about this very thing but with a different slant. I put your link up with appropriate info. A solid piece of writing.
Re polls: Rasmussen is totally unreliable because they have been in cahoots with the Republicans for years.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=11748
NObama lost this race with his lefty spending. Hopefully he will find out that its all about the jobs, not Wall Street, but main street. I am one Conservative who wishes that he succeeds in helping America become economically strong again, because I view myself an American first then a Conservative second. So when America does well; we all will do well. I just thought he would focus on getting people back to work first before focusing on Healthcare. How can someone afford Healthcare, when they don't have no job. I hope that my Republican Party will at least work with those Democrats to bring America jobs back. Again, I do blame my Republicans for getting us into this mess, but I also blame the Democrats for not focusing on bringing down the national debt and not focusing on the jobs. Hopefully this will wake up all incumbents Republicans and Democrats thinking their jobs are safe. We the people are now being heard.
Scott Brown.
Statesman. Father. Husband. Lawyer. National Guard Officer. US Senator.
Nude model.
Of course after spending a little time perusing the erotic etchings of Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, James Madison et. al. it's perfectly in keeping with the Founding Father's vision of how our republic should be governed.
Truth101: "TAO's been called lots worse than "schmuck" Octo."
I am sure he has, and so have I, but there is a line between arguing the point versus attacking the person. I have a zero tolerance attitude about personal attacks. So keep it clean, my friend.
Yes, not all is lost but the Dems better figure out that the base isn't happy or the whole ship will go down.
Tao: Glad to be of service. And maybe I can mention Van Jones and get Arthurstone active in this item too :)
Re: Scott Brown posing nude: I did mention this in a previous post--how scandalized the conservatives would have been had Coakley appeared nude in a magazine in her youth. But there is always a double standard with some of them.
Remember how the family values crowd embraced the Palins--parents of two high school drop-outs and an unwed mother?
Now we all have our struggles in life, and I'm not bashing the Palins for having had to deal with theirs, but one does wonder how understanding the conservative family values crowd would have been if say, Mr. and Mrs. Obama's children had the same "issues" as did the Palins.
The conservatives seem to have Christian understanding only for their crowd.
It's the double standard that is so hypocritical.
Alexcavillo: Obama has done more in the first year than any president since FDR. You, like so many, can't see the forest for the trees - that is, you can't see the big picture because you have a case of tunnel vision.
Things don't happen overnight, especially when one side of the aisle puts up a concrete barrier.
Wow, there's a pic of Coakley nude? Really? ;-)
Just kiddin. But I do seem to remember a rather nasty brouhaha about Dr. Laura S's nude photos from a few years back. Libs gleefully emailing each other with the very exposed Dr. Laura. Humm, NOW did not have a problem with that either. Talk of double standards.
This from today's Rasmussen presidential approval poll:
Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.
Not able to get a local Mass. poll.
No need to get defensive about the political makeup of Mass. It is a fact that you guys are over taxed and anti-business. Typical liberal state. Enjoy it. Embrace it. Just keep it to yourselves is all the rest of America asks. ;-)
NOTE: I live in California. Talk about blue.
Jim,
You really want to get into it with me don't you.
There's a difference between voluntarily posing nude in a national magazine for money (What Scott Brown did) and having an ex-boy friend send nude pictures of you to some internet site so it can be sent out to whomever wants to find it. (That's what happened to Dr. Laura).
Two. Entirely. Different. Things. They are not connected in any way, shape, or form. One is a deliberate act with the knowledge that the photo will be seen by the public, the other is not. This happened to the unfortunate Miss California as well. She made a private sex tape for a boyfriend who, after breaking up with her, made it public. She never meant it to be public.
People are stupid. In the age of the internet, people should know that if they pose nude or make a sex tape and they become famous, it's gonna get out there!
If it weren't for 'over taxed' and 'anti business' types we never would have built an interstate highway system.
But as far too many 'Conservatives' love to exclaim at various tea bagging functions:
"Keep government out of Medicare!"
JIM wrote: "No need to get defensive about the political makeup of Mass. It is a fact that you guys are over taxed and anti-business. Typical liberal state. Enjoy it. Embrace it. Just keep it to yourselves is all the rest of America asks. ;-)
NOTE: I live in California. Talk about blue."
Jim, I've lived in Massachusetts for most of my life. It is NOT anti-business. Yes, the taxes are high. But it is one of the most desireable places in the country to live. Property values are high. Why? BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE HERE. Why? Schools, hospitals, jobs, quality of life.
And not all of California is blue. I lived in SoCal for 2 years. I was a stranger in a stranage land.
Now San Francisco is a different story. I left my heart there.
Shaw; About California, when I was in San Diego, it seemed quite "red" to me.
So, what is Mass doing different than Michigan? We've have the high taxes too. Maybe it's the Dem governor that seems hellbent on chasing the auto industry away while turning the state into the new Hollywood.
Yep, dmarks, San Diego is quite red. *smirk*
All the more reason to get paid for nude photos. That at least is a business decision and not a flutter of the heart! ;-)
If you think Mass. is a business friendly state then Cali is absolutely a business heaven! NOT. Just try to open a new business in either state and see what paper hell you have to go through. Workman's Comp. Green laws. Matching employee retirement funds. And so much more. And I ain't even started talking about the state laws in either state.
O well at least dmarks lives in a free state. Ooops, goofed. ;-)
Oh, yeah....so California and Massachusetts are 'anti-business' well I live in Kentucky which will do anything to get companies to relocate here...
Free money, free buildings, and tax abatements...
Still no takers....
I can't help but notice that there appears to be a direct relationship between wages paid and tax rate.
Taxes in Kentucky are low but so are wages....guess you get what you pay for and with lower taxes you get a dumber workforce, a sicker workforce, a lazier workforce that is more obese...
So go ahead and become more probusiness and lower those taxes and turn your states into business utopias like kentucky....
Or Tennessee, or Alabama, or Mississippi....
Yep, all are real meccas of capitalism....
Funny how so many innovative companies are able to get their start and prosper in states such as California, Washington, Massachusetts, et. al. with all the 'regulation' and onerous tax burdens. Here in Seattle we seem to manage quite well.
These are wonderful places to live and attract bright, creative, energetic people from around the world. Quality of life is important and government is seen not as an enemy but as a partner. Imagine that.
But then you get what you pay for.
Of course we can't all live in in Eden, states like Louisiana, Arkansas or the Dakotas where the tax burden is light, government is often a toothless nuisance and 'real Americans' can do as they darn well please.
Thank god.
Funny.
California. Massachusetts. Washington. States with 'high taxes' and 'onerous regulation' (of business) been home to some of the most dynamic business start-ups of the past half century. Quality of life issues factor into this a lot. Seattle has a 'high' tax burden but people flock to live and work here.
And you get what you pay for.
We can't all live in Arkansas or Louisiana or the Dakotas (thank goodness) where gubmint is often a toothless inconvenience catering to a few and leaving the rest to grovel in 'liberty' with lousy schools, and minimal basic services.
From the Fortune 500 list for 2009:
Top 3
# of Fortune 500 Companies
Texas 64
New York 56
California 51
What is interesting is that companies are moving away from the high tax states to Texas. (BTW - Boeing moved it's headquarters from Seattle to Chicago.)
Yes, there has been a whole lot of outstanding start-ups, such as Microsoft and Starbucks in Seattle, AMGEN in Thousand Oaks CA, to name a few. But if the business climate gets to onerous, they move. No matter the ambiance of the original host city or state.
Jim: Thanks for illustrating "you get what you pay for". i.e. unnecessary overtaxation.
Jim: And there are other factors. Here in Michigan, the governor and the UAW have joined hands in a partnership to dash the state's auto industry on the rocks.
O I feel your pain dmarks. Michigan is a very good example of what America can become if this November the scoundrels are not voted out (RINO's included). New Orleans is even a more painful example.
And the brainiac-executives who have actually operated the 'big three' making the designs and all the business decisions over the past thirty-odd years had nothing to do with the demise of the US auto industry.
Right.
I love it when 'real Americans' display their disdain for actual working people.
Another interesting facet to this discussion is how giant corporations play various states off one another.
It wasn't enough that our representatives to Washington D.C. have long been known as the 'Senators from Boeing'. Nor was it enough that Boeing year in and year out pushed the company's agenda (very successfully) in our state legislature.
Nope. Other sates sweeten the pot and offer incentives and more favorable (non-union) labor environments.
As ALWAYS the big guy who calls the tune.
It's the American way.
Arthur said: "And the brainiac-executives who have actually operated the 'big three' making the designs and all the business decisions over the past thirty-odd years had nothing to do with the demise of the US auto industry."
They had a lot to do with it. As did the line workers doing a lousy bottom-of-the-barrel job of putting the cars together and making $50 or so an hour for it. Not a sustainable situation, when other auto workers were being paid a lower (but still high) wage for doing a much better job.
"and more favorable (non-union) labor environments."
Yes. People who do higher quality work for a lower (but still high) wage, with the added benefit (for workers) that these non-union workers don't have money gouged out of their paychecks to give to political candidates that go against their interests.
Hiring the best (regardless of union involvement) always makes the most sense.
"I love it when 'real Americans' display their disdain for actual working people."
Who does? The political group that sides with the 9% or so of workers that say "union yes", or the group that sides with the 90% or so who say "union no" ?
Post a Comment