That's cause it takes a village.

I love the way the GOP is claiming that "Massachusetts has shown how much it hates government-run health care." Yeah, the state that was one of the first to have its own government-run health care program which is quite popular with a majority of the state's voters wanted to send a message about health care.

Apparently that message must be "We got ours, America -- screw you."

Or perhaps -- just perhaps -- it might not just be about health care after all!!!!!

The latest poll relating to Massachusetts's plan, that I could find, was from 11/27/09 from Rasmussen, and it did not seem to show that the plan was "quite popular with a majority of the state's voters." The results seem mixed at best.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/massachusetts/in_massachusetts_32_consider_state_s_health_care_reform_a_success

What are these facts you keep bringing up? LALALALALALALALA!

We already have hc in Mass, why da fuck would we want to pay for everyone else to get it?

Brown won because he campaigned as a centrist independent and Coakley was a joke. The public tide is clearly in the center, hence why this partisan nonsense by both sides (not obama though really) has been so off putting.

When a state that has a government-run health care plan votes for a candidate who opposes pushing that policy nation wide, does that not serve as a referendum against what they have (or at the least a referendum against changing it to a different, but worse, government-run option)? Just because they currently have government-run health care doesn't mean they are happy with it, and it sure as hell doesn't mean they have to love this giant pile of shit that Democrats are trying to shove down our throats.

...But he's not actually one.

That's why this is so mind-boggling. Do people always just graft onto the terms politicians use to define themselves? Or do they, like, look up their actual views on the issues. Brown's position on pretty much every single social issue was way to the right. I know MA has a history of voting for Republican governors because those governors run on fiscal agendas that unfailingly woo us, but senators usually run placing more emphasis on their social positions. This is a real blow to everything MA stands for as far as civil liberties. Ugh.

I'm surprised by Rassmussen's poll and would like to see another recent one. I found some old ones where MA residents said they liked their plan but nothing recently.

The vast majority of Americans still want health care reform -- they just don't necessarily like this one. (I'm included in that, but I'll take any reform over none whatsoever).

The dems lost in MA for many reason, though. For instance:

1. Having a poor candidate who was boring and didn't like to campaign
2. Taking it easy thinking they have it made instead of running a real campaign
3. A Republican who campaigned as a moderate
4. Anger over many things (including health care) -- and when people are angry at government, they vote for the party not in power

I still hold that to claim that MA, who has health care, voted against the Democrats solely because of health care is ridiculous.

really if Republicans go back as being united as they were in 1994, they could cause a great upheaval in the next elections.

Republicans can easily bring all the public anger on there side if they play smart (dirty) politics. Meaning dropping the social stuff to the background and arguing these points...

1. No Health Care Reform
2. Lower Deficits and lower spending (Yes, I know, but people will fall for it)
3. No civil trials for Terrorist (this issue has much more traction than you think)

Lets see if Obama will go to playing dirty hardball politics, or will he turn around like Bill Clinton?

The election in Mass, saw massive declines in votes from the inner city minorities and young people that really helped the democrats.

Groucho your last point is right, but it had an impact no doubt.

Also Obama finally gets it...


Sure you can say "be patient", but if it was the other way around (Republican) you be yelling and screaming. If you lift expectations and you fail to meet them, you must pay the price.

One of the left's biggest complaints about Obama is his insistence on playing softball when everyone else is playing hardball. You have 59 Senators and a majority of the House! How can you not get things accomplished!

I hope they wise up. Obama should bring Hillary back and make her Chief of Staff. She wouldn't pussyfoot around.

Clinton tried that and ended up in the 1994 republican revolution... ^^^

Look the left may get angry but in the Novemeber election the turnout from the left will be way down. It will be the right wingers and independents that will came out in a huge numbers...




The key to keeping power is to weaken your opponents...
By declaring war on them when a great deal of the population is so angry and skeptical, I would say is not the wise choice.

Well, no, I think the point is to fight BACK. It's not like the democrats started the war. The GOP has a policy of saying "no" to everything without offering any solution of their own. Their only strategy is to make Obama fail so that people will vote for them. That's not only putting party before country, but it does nothing to accomplish anything.

Obama needs to say "OK, fine, if you have no interest in working things out, then we'll do it without you." That's what I meant.

By the way, everyone is invited to join my new Facebook group "Hillary for Chief of Staff; We need someone in the White House with Balls"

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2 ... 665&ref=nf

yes Obama is fighting back with his Bank Bill.


Lol, you can weaken your own Banks, that would make us Happy in Canada...