The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I'm surprised no one has brought this up. This is very big news. This isn't some bi-partisan state. It's freaking Mass where Kennedy has reigned supreme. I have to admit while I know of an increasing number of people upset about the healthcare issue being forced down our throats,  I didn't really think this was possible. 

 http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/20/coakley.brown/index.html?hpt=T1

Boston, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Even before the polls closed on Tuesday night, Democrats were distancing themselves from Democrat Martha Coakley and blaming her lackluster campaign for her stunning loss in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.

A top adviser to President Obama rejected assertions that Tuesday's vote was a referendum on the president or Democratic policies and instead took a shot at Coakley: "Campaigns and candidates matter."

For weeks, Scott Brown had been the underdog candidate, running behind in the race to finish out the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's term.

Trailing by double digits a little more than a week ago, Brown had edged ahead of Coakley, campaigning as the pickup truck-driving candidate, capitalizing on voter frustrations and vowing to send Obama's health care bill "back to its drawing board."

Coakley, the state's attorney general, had been considered a shoo-in in heavily Democratic Massachusetts, which hadn't elected a Republican to the Senate in 38 years.

But as Brown gained momentum and Coakley's numbers fell, Democrats rushed big guns to campaign for her, including Obama and former President Bill Clinton.

Share your thoughts on the election results

In the hours after Coakley's concession speech, though, Coakley's pollster Celinda Lake fired back at criticism that she ran a weak and misguided campaign and failed to recognize Brown's surge until it was too late.

Instead, Lake warned Democrats that, "There's a wave here. The first shore was New Jersey and Virginia," she said, referring to Democratic losses in the governors races there, "the second was Massachusetts and it's coming to the island now, so we'd better do something about it."

Other Democrats appeared to recognize the anti-Washington sentiment the recent votes represent.

Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia said that the election "became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process."


Republican Party
While Democrats huddled to try to figure out a way to get their health care bill passed before Brown is seated and ends their 60-seat filibuster-proof "supermajority" in the Senate, Webb says it would be "prudent" for Congress to suspend further votes on health care reform legislation until Brown is seated.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York, said Tuesday night that the Massachusetts results demonstrated Democrats have to change their strategy on health care.

"Large numbers of independent voters saying they're upset about health care, that's not just their fault, that's our fault too. And we have to think about what we're doing wrong here, and to have a conversation as if nothing happened, whether you're in Massachusetts or not, is being tone deaf."

Brown warned in his victory speech that Democrats will face the same factors in the midterm elections in November that led to his win in Massachusetts on Tuesday.

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises." he said. "They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it."

Heading into the race, few political analysts believed Brown, a state senator, had a serious shot at beating Coakley, the state's attorney general.

Brown was underfunded and unknown statewide. No Republican has won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats control the state's congressional delegation. They also hold the state's governorship, along with overwhelming majorities in the state legislature.

But Brown, who is in his third term in the state Senate, charged forward on a pledge to end wasteful government spending and hand politics back to the people.

Before he was in the state Senate, Brown served three terms as a state representative. He's also a member of the Massachusetts National Guard.

"He's branded himself brilliantly. He has run as the people's senator," said Jennifer Donahue, a political analyst and contributor to The Huffington Post.

Asked in a debate last week if he was willing to sit in Kennedy's seat and block health care reform, Brown replied, "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

Donahue said that was the game changer for Brown because Coakley "didn't have an effective answer against that."

More so than a statement on the candidates' strength and weaknesses, it's discontent among voters in Massachusetts that swung the election, said David Gergen, a political analyst and CNN contributor.

"Scott Brown turned this into a referendum on what's going on in Washington, especially with health care. His campaign began to gain traction when he said that, 'I am going to be the 41st senator, the one who can stop a lot of this,' " Gergen said.

Gergen also pointed to a major sports gaffe that might have hurt Coakley's image in Red Sox nation. In a recent radio interview, she suggested that former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan.

"When she was clueless the other day about who Curt Schilling was ... you can imagine what that did," Gergen said.

John Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics," says in the end, the results of Tuesday's election rested in the hands of independent voters. Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Massachusetts, but there are more independents than Republicans and Democrats combined.

"Independents asserting their real power even in Massachusetts should be a huge wake-up call to Democrats and Republicans."

But no matter what the outcome, Avlon said this shouldn't be viewed as voters turning on Obama.

"I don't think it's a referendum on Obama necessarily personally, because he is still personally popular with many independents. It's the Democratic Congress that's being reacted against.

"Independents like the checks and balances of divided government. They dislike the ideological arrogance and legislative overreach that comes when one party controls both the White House and Congress. That's what you're seeing," he said.

I wonder if people just didn't like her or if it was over the issues, especially health care.

Actually she wasn't a very good canidate and Brown was predicted to win for a long time.  And a republican winning in Mass really isn't that big of a deal.  Before electing Deval Patrick, Mass had 4 republican governors in a row from '91 - '07.  Fact is "Liberals" are in fact liberal as in make up their own mind and don't always vote party line.  The "left coast" aka California is the state Ronald Regan was governor of.  Red states are actually more party line, than blue states.  The number one reason Mass has a reputation for being the most liberal state in the country has to do with the presidental election of '72 when it was the only state which was smart enough to not vote for tricky dick.  Rhode Island is actually more liberal than Mass, but it too has had republican governors and senators.     

This is a pretty big deal.  It was a perfect storm.

Coakley ran a bad campaign.  She's a lawyer, not a politician, so she didn't really go campaign.  Brown had 60 events in the last month.  She had 18.  He out-hustled her.

The Dems also made the mistake of thinking that it was a done deal months ago.  It gave Brown all the momentum.

But, it's also a referendum on the economic situation.  People, in general, think that Obama's health-care plan is a bad one and Brown represented a way to kill it.

I think that Obama's honeymoon is over and he's now bearing the brunt of all the economic situation.

Coakley ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory.  She clearly presumed that the (D) next to her name was an automatic win.  She went on a freaking 2-week vacation in a 6-week general election cycle.  Absolutely unbelievable.

That being said, it is true that a majority of people object to the health care plans... but this statement is, in and of itself, misleading.  There are many people who object to it because they think that it doesn't go far enough.

Saying that this election is an indication that legislation needs to move further to the right is incredibly shortsighted.  The state of Massachusetts already has healthcare that is further to the left than the plan that Congress is trying to pass!  If anything, this election (and the poor Dem turnout in heavy Dem areas like Boston) shows that Obama's endless triangulation and attempts to work with an opposition that has no goal other than pure obstructionism is pointless.

Arlen Specter's defection was the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party.  It allowed the GOP and the media to frame the situation as 60-votes-or-nothing, when they should have been using the Bush playbook of 50+1-is-a-majority from jump.  Republicans never had anywhere close to 60 and they passed whatever the f*ck they wanted for 6 years.

The best solution now is:

1) House passes the Senate bill as is (it contains many important healthcare insurance reforms that would not qualify for a bill passed under reconciliation)
2) Senate starts wielding the reconciliation hammer vigorously and repeatedly, using it to pass things like a public option (which would qualify for reconciliation)

50+1 was good enough for the GOP.  We elected 58 Democratic Senators to govern, not stand around with their hands in their pockets.

41 Republican Senators does not a mandate make.

he only thing gives the GOP is the ability to filibuster, that is all.
The woman said Schillling was a Yankee fan, and one of her aides knocked a reporter to the ground. She appeared not to care and out of touch.
Then there was the whole Catholic shouldn't work gaffe.
There is still the possibility it could get passed before Brown is certified and sworn in next month.

The Senate Dems have already thrown themselves under the bus on that one, insisting that no new legislation be passed until Brown is seated.

Imbeciles, the lot of them.

I like the Howard Dean brand of thinking.  He's a no BS kind of guy.  He says that you can't compromise; it just isn't realistic.  Just get what you want and push it through, then live or die based on the results.

I think it's the only way to go.

Bush was a lot of things, but he was effective, at the very least.  Without a filibuster-proof majority, he still got whatever he wanted.  Ultimately, he is seen very unfavorably for a lot of it, but he got judged on the policies.

That is because the GOP had tough focues leadership that got their people in line to vote. The Dems have a pea brained grandma and an out of touch old man, and both of them are spineless and too beholden to the far left fringe of their constituents.

Pelosi is a lot less spineless than Reid, who allowed Lieberman and Nelson to dictate terms to the rest of the caucus.

Furthermore, I think it's fairly absurd to say that they are beholden to their far-left constituents when virtually every goal of the left (single-payer system, Medicare open to all, strong public option tied to Medicare rates, weak public option with negotiated rates) was ultimately shot down.

Reid, in particular, is too worried about "centrism" to get anything done.

It's a good day here in Massachusetts  ;D

I agree with Spider.  Hate on Pelosi all you want, but she gets shit done.

And it's definitely not appeasing the left that's the problem.  It's totally the opposite.  When you do a bunch of compromising, only to get ZERO opposition votes, it just weakens your position.  At that point, screw the compromise and just pass the bill you want.  That's been the problem all along.  The stimulus is a good example.  They packed it with a bunch of tax cuts that the GOP wanted and they still didn't get a vote.  What's the point of adding things for the other side if they aren't going to support it anyway.

I think this is the larger problems. I would love to see the Dems say screw the GOP and get some balls. Compromise isn't working nor is it worth the effort. They should just start pushing shit through  and watch the fall out.


Is this because you're happy your new senator looks like this:

(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jezebel/2009/09/Scott-Brown-new3.jpg)

Gotta say I love the double standard. No way a woman could do that. Just goes to show how deep the "Good Old Boy" network in Mass. is. Congrats!

I wouldn't think of Mass being a good ol boy network but racy pictures are a part of many people's past. It certainlty doesn't define who they are today.


I don't think compromising is the issue.  You can compromise without loosing your values. It's once you lose that the integrity is lost and you become just a wishy washy politician who is only worried about the next election. Unfortunately that is where most politicians sit.

First Buddha, Brown is a REpublican, and therefore not even allowed within whistling distance of the Good ol' boy network here. Coakley is actually one of the  Good ol' boys here, which makes his victory even that much more impressive.
Second, I don't personally think that something as innocuous as this photo spread from some ancients Cosmo should come back to kick any candidate in the head, regardless of gender. It's just not relevant. 

Except that Mass has NEVER had a female senator. Period. Which indeed, makes him part of the good old boy network.
Bros are tighter than hos, yo!

To both: I don't care about a stupid Cosmo spread. However, the double standard is there. If Brown were female there's no way he'd be senator now. Racy pictures for a women would be unacceptable.

Hijack, note from the moderator.....could someone please warn befre I see half naked pictures of a man in a thread  :-[ .... :D

End hijack ...Everything we do in this country is reactive,alomst never proactive the shit has to hit the fan before anything changes.Then it takes so long for anything to change...The changes are useless......The longer it took to get the healthcare package pushed through, the more palms get greased.....

Word.

Only if it goes both ways bro. ;)

 I  didnt think it was possible either, in such a blue state. but thank GOD , it did. It saved the country , for now, from a plan that was being forced down our throats. maybe now the prez will listen to the people and what  WE want . but i'm not holding my breath.

OK, Buddha, I see what you were saying  about the "ol boy network" but I really believe that this race was strictly about politics, and that the best candidate, not man, won the job.

Being from MA I have watch this whole thing unfold. I have to say it was fun to watch. Coakly is a d-bag.

Go Brown. 

Cant wait for 2012, it is time for change lets get rid of Obama!

can't wait!

This race was way over hyped. It does not mean near as much as the spin meisters and agents of fear would have you believe. All this means is the GOP can try and fillibuster now, as if they have the stomach to actually fillibuster like the old days when it was effective.
The Dems knew historically they were going to lose at least some of their majorities during the mid term election.
I understand why Fow is doing what they are doing but to see so many people acting like this is some sort of revelation or revolution is assinine.

41 is the new 60.  In this new era, winning 1 of 2 elections at the federal level in a 3 month timespan = clear mandate.

Republicans have all the power and the Democrats are helpless to stop them.

I really don't understand the thinking of the anti-healthcare reform movement.  What do they want?  I think that the status quo is unsustainable.

I'd buy that if Mass had a few women in the Senate in their past. Since they do not, I'm going to continue to think they're happy with the good ol' boy network they have.

I think it's hilarious that 1 year in, people are already calling for change. Yet 8 years of one of the worsts presidencies in history was fine. Don't you think it takes longer than 1 year to clean that up?

I would love to hear what "changes" you guys want? Or is this just a case of you wanting "not Obama"?

While I tend to vote Repulican these days, I think its more of the Independants upset of the way the Democrats are doing business more than how the Republicans have shown anything or the good ol boy network.  If anything it was a mark against the good ol boy network in good ol Mass.

Just talking to people in my world that supported Obama, I think Pelosi and Reid do more harm than good for your causes. Outside of die hard Democrats I don't believe they come across as having it together.   

I don't think the status quo works for many Americans, but I have issues with some of the arts of this reform movement. Change just for change isn't always better.

 obama managed to put us in a bigger hole in one year , than bush did in 8.

How so? I like specifics.

Yes I would like to know all the costly legislation that affected us so badly this last year?

youre kidding right???

one word,  " bailouts"  , or maybe try this one...."stimulus" who's paying for it? not the government, but the taxpayers. we are spending trillions we dont have.and where did it go? why are we still at almost 10% unemployment after all that spending? and dont say its only been a year, because thats bullshit.  the whole thing was an utter and complete failure, everyone knows it.  and will cost us all in the future.  but people are starting to see through the smoke and mirrors, and are reacting. (mass. senate election.)  and come november , its all over for the dems, and they know it. thats why obama is scrambling to get his health care reform (another disaster) pushed through before the roof caves in , and he's got no juice. truth be told, no country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. anyone who voted for this clown got snowed.

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual.  He is not to be underestimated.  He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions.  It's very hard to know what's behind the mask.  The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment.  The Clintons still do not understand what hit them.  Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2.  Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton.  He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite.  Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3.  Obama has a ruthless quest for power.  He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism.  He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along.
He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society.  He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government.  He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus.  The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth.  Paying for FREE college education is his goal.  Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof.  The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada.  God forbid!

5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types.  No one around him has ever even run a candy store.  But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries.  This obviously can't work in the long run.  Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left.  Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world.  He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas.  He sees moral equivalency in all cultures.  His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors.  This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies.  He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012.  He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future.  He has a huge ego, and he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong.  Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him.  Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party.  Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage.  Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future.  We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous.  We are spending trillions that we don't have.  This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse.  No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity.  The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda.  But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package.  These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome.  The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally.  Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power.  If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight.  It will all be about the economy.  I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress.  There is a left-wing revolution going on, ,  keep the faith and join the loyal resistance.  The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.               
 

You mean the Stimulas packages under Bush? or the Ones pushed through before right before Obama took office.....Ever think What the unemplyment rate would be if GM,Dodge,and AIG went under?  Just curious....

Flame away....

Uhm...yeah. I thought the stimulus package started with Bush, but maybe I was drunk or something then. As far at the bailouts, I'm still in a wait and see mode. It took a long time to get this way, it'll take a long time to get out of it. Though, I'm not one that's all up in arms about the economy. (Nor have I ever been.)

I'm more frustrated with his social issues, but I'm just waiting to see what happens. I would like to see Obama stop pandering to the right and take care of things such as coming up with a healthcare bill that doesn't walk all over women's rights to choose and doing away with don't-ask-don't-tell.

Your second post makes no sense. Is that supposed to be opinion? Fact? Are you a teabagger?

flame away? Thats what happening to our prez one year in. oh , how the mighty have fallen.........

now you tell me........ what did AIG do with the money given to them again?? oh yeah , i guess you missed the part where they blew it all on trips and bonuses for the ceo's and execs. And yeah, cash for clunkers? the auto bailout did so very well that obama had to initiate cash for clunkers.  please....... stop letting the wool get pulled over your eyes. and stop with  the bush nonsense. bush is gone, and has nothing to do with any of the trillions (that we dont have) that obama is spending. the bailout saved nothing. try to tell that to the millions of people still out of work, and i guarantee you won't be able to walk the street.

 so , i'll say it again.......no country has ever spent themselves into prosperity.

Seriously, I lost two jobs in 2009, one because the company failed and the other because it's about to fail.  Nobody is hiring because business is bad for everyone.  People don't have extra money to get medical care for their pets, they are too busy trying to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.  Nice change.

all of the above.
now its your turn to explain. why does this make no sense? is this your opinion? fact?
 i voted for this man, and he , in turn ,  has showed me nothing  except gross overspending ,back room deals, and a ruthless desire to get what HE  wants. he steps and fetches  to our enemies, showing them weakness , by telling them that WE , as a nation, are arrogant? what leader does this?  he wants to use peace and diplomacy with countries that want us all dead at any cost. and at the same time wants to reward the  illegal immigrants,and lazy parasites of this country with free healthcare....
i am  for neither party. i simple vote for the man, not the party. whoever is best for my country , i will choose. unfortunately , there are alot of people  out there who simply vote for party, or race.

Boy I hate Politics....
You need to go reread history...go read about the 1929 crash, or the 9 months before the crash....and how we recovered from the crash....

Ok, I'm done have fun....

The bailout along with the tax breaks, housing market implosion, and a two front war all came about under Bush's watch which Obama inheireted.
The stimulus package happened mostly under Obama's  watch.
So most of the stuff you are rambling about was not enacted by Obama, so once again I ask you what has he done in the last year that is worse than the bills, and policies that were enacted unde on Bush's watch?
Health care, cap and trade are for the most part dead right now until after the mid term elections, so you can stop rambling against them.

You being a teabagger is all I needed to know. It makes no sense because it was all speculation and there were no facts to back anything up. There were hints of that whole "socialist" fear in there. It's not rational.  This discussion is not worth my time.

Obama = epic fail.

I think that Obama has done a good job, for the most part.

The worst of the economic problems are over.  I think that while the bailouts are unpopular, that they were needed.  Without them, I feel that we'd be in a worse position than we are.  It's Keynesian economics...not something Obama made up.  You pump taxpayer money into the economy, with the idea that the economy will grow enough to pay the taxpayers back.  Otherwise, you don't spend the money, but the economy as a whole falls further, and everyone loses their money anyway.

To say that the things Obama did this year are in any way responsible for where we are is a completely ludicrous statement.  The bailouts (which were under Bush, anyway) may very well be a horrible decision, but we won't see that for several years.

This kneejerk reaction to Obama, based on the current economy (whether good or bad) just doesn't make any sense.  The economic climate isn't something where change is made and you see it the next day.  It's something that you'll have to judge in a decade.

which , in turn was a result of events that bush inherited from the clinton administration, and its failures to follow up on events that they turned a blind eye to.

housing market implosion-- a result of clinton's fair housing act, giving every poor slob with no credit a loan. and giving every wannabe big shot a 800, 000 loan for homes they cant afford

two front war---- coming from clintons blatant refusal to act on early warning signs of terrorist threats. bush wound up fighting the war clinton caused

you still have not explained to me why my statement made no sense to you......why is it speculation? where are YOUR facts? it shouldnt matter what i am, or why i said it, whats your rebuttal?

to say that the worst is over, when people are committing suicide over thier money problems is irresponsible, and ludicrous at best. you try tellling that to the millions out there still jobless and waiting for a rescue.
look around you dave. its all over the news. people are unhappy. and are  unhappy with the direction the country is going. its no secret , and not just my opinion. its fact. obama is not living up to the hype. if you dont see it, you are living in a hole. its all over the media.

Or maybe he is an die hard Obama supporter, and doesn't like truth.

You're committing a logical fallacy.

I think the worst is over.  The accuracy of that statement is not judged by the amount of suicides. 

The financial markets are way up, since they bottomed out.  Banks are performing better than when they were completely seized and job numbers are no longer in free-fall.  That isn't to say that things are good, but that they are improved from what they were.

You're still not understanding me, though.  The current economic climate (good or bad) is not because of Obama.  That doesn't make sense.  This decline happened well before the bailouts (which Bush signed into law, anyway -- your facts are off) and it's just not accurate to say otherwise.  You can argue for or against the policies that Obama is doing or trying to do.  That's healthy political debate.  But you can't attribute our current situation to him or his policies.  Those things will have to be judged five or ten years down the road, when the effects are seen.  Economic recovery isn't immediate or even short term.

And bringing in health care to this argument makes even less sense, since nothing has passed.  No changes have been made in that regard.

Because it came across as the ramblings of a mad man. I've offered up nothing as fact. I've said that I'm frustrated with him on other issues. I've also stated that I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMY. I care about other issues.

More importantly I don't argue with teabaggers. It's not worth my time. The ignorance there is too deep.

^^^^^sweetie, i'm not arguing . and i certainly mean no disrespect to you or anyone on this board. nor do intend to insult anyone. so , my apologies if i did. i simply post my opinion and i say  it with the utmost respect of your, and everyone elses opinion .

 by saying you wont even entertain my point of view , you are showing your ignorance by not even considering why i , and most of the country now feel this way.is it  your way , or nothing? its like saying you're right and a million people who disagree are wrong.that goes against everything the constitution stands for. and ramblings of a madman?why? because its not what you believe? i know youre smarter than that. i simply want my country back......for all of us.

unfortunately, youre right.  democrats and liberals rarely see it any other way , but thier own. no matter the consequence.

i never said obama caused it, i said he made it worse , with senseless spending. and unless you know of people who are actually hurting, like i do, its hard to imagine the other side of the coin. you say, you "think" the worst is over, but how do you speak for the mass millions who are still jobless , and fighting to keep thier homes. that , sir, is ignorant. i personally know alot of people on the brink , who if they heard you say that, would like to spit in your face. you can't simply assume, just because you are not feeling the pinch,or because the media says so, that everthing is  rosey everywhere in the country.... because i'm here to tell you its not. i see it first hand everyday. so please dont sit there and try to tell me everything is ok.  its not. and i'm offended by the assuption. and so is everyone who is crying on thier pillow tonight......

its just the overblown spending, without fear of consequence, that really bothers me. and no trace of where the money is actually going. nobody ever told me where all this bailout money actually went. i know where it was SUPPOSED  to go........

in case you failed to catch it in a previous post.......i voted for him. so you must be just as "ignorant"as me.

I caught that. ;-)

I didn't want to get into it, but I guess I have to since I'm challenged.  I'm one of those people out of work and losing their home.  It still doesn't change the argument, and I don't really like being called ignorant for it.

You're saying that Obama is making it worse with all of the spending, but again, I'm telling you that most of this big spending (the stimulus) was done before Obama stepped foot into office.  But EVEN IF IT WAS OBAMA'S BIG SPENDING, that wouldn't be hurting us now.  Big spending doesn't cause economic problems in the same year.  If it's going to cause problems, it will be decades later when you have to pay it back.

You're also creating a classic straw-man argument.  I (nor anyone else) is saying that things are rosy or good.  I'm just saying that worst of the crisis is over.  That might not make the jobless individual person feel any better, but it's what I believe to be the fact.  The stock market is considerably higher than where it bottomed out, and jobless claims are diminishing.  It doesn't mean that we're out of the woods, but it is an indication that some form of recovery is happening.

That's not to say that Obama is without criticism from me.  I think that Obama is responsible for selling his ideas, and he's done a poor job with some of that.  He has put too much faith in the legislative branch to figure it out on their own, rather than backing ideas and campaigning for their success.

I also think that he needs to make good on some of his social promises, as well as the openness of his administration.  The economy is important, but that doesn't mean you can't tackle more than one issue at a time.

I'm not an apologist, but I think it's only fair to scorn people for the things that they're responsible for, and not for things that they aren't.

What declared war did he inheirit?

What about the failure of a GOP controlled congres to address the housing issue before it blew up?
The banks had to approve those loans after checking to see if the buyers meant the qualifying criteria. Sub Prime loans were a creation of the banks to get more people into home loans as the pool of qualified people was shrinking.
I see you are pretty much throwing up talking points here, with nothing to back them up. Do you have coherent thoughts of your own that are not fromed from what ever talk show you got them from?

Which events were those?  The Bush administration's blatant dismissal of the militant Islamic threat prior to 9/11?  Seems like Clinton handled his terrorist problem ('93 WTC) without turning it into an excuse for an enormous power grab and an invasion of a completely unrelated nation.

Yet another GOP talking point.  Do you seriously believe that it's the subprime housing market that caused this problem, when even prime market loans have been falling apart for years?  No, this is just another way for the Republicans to blame every problem on a) poor people or b) brown people.

The fact of the matter is that there were safeguards in place to prevent this sort of collapse from happening.  Prior to GOP financial deregulation, every single subprime loan could have defaulted and it would have been nothing more than a blip.  The collapse was caused by insurance companies participating in thinly-veiled gambling, where Party C takes out an insurance policy (otherwise known as a Credit Default Swap) on whether or not Party A will default on its loan from Party B.  Yes, you read that right: a third-party is taking out insurance on another party's loan.  This is like me taking out insurance on whether or not LeBron James gets in a car accident.

Have you ever wondered why one of the biggest part of the TARP bailout was rescuing AIG... an insurance company?  They don't make loans to homeowners, subprime or otherwise.  But they do (and did) issue out these incredibly corrupt Credit Default Swaps... and when the home loans started failing, AIG was on the hook to pay out billions of dollars that they didn't have.  That's what caused the collapse; not the homeowners (subprime or otherwise) defaulting on their mortgages, but the financial institutions that overleveraged themselves to insanity, resting on Credit Default Swaps as "backing" for their financial solvency.  Once some loans started failing and it became clear that no one had the money to pay out the CDSes, the entire operation was exposed for the Ponzi scheme that it is.

This is what previously existing regulation prevented, and what caused the financial collapse.  The Community Reinvestment Act (the oft-cited scapegoat of the right) was signed into law in 1977.  You're about 20 years too late to blame it for the housing bubble.

That's funny, because even if one takes your statement at face value, shouldn't that only equal a one-front war (Afghanistan)?

Blaming Clinton for Iraq is beyond absurd.  You'd be better off blaming GHWB.

You show me disrespect by calling me sweetie. You don't know me. Don't call me sweetie. It's degrading and an insult.

I think the biggest thing with the stimulus bill is where the money went.  Most people feel most of the money spent has been wasted.  Sure a few big companies/banks profitted from it and for good reasons, but the perception is that most of it wasted to help out friends. Where the money was spent is directly associated with Obama.

Had the lower end seen results form it it would be much different today. No one cares if the banks are still open if they won't work with us to get through the tough times too. In fact I find it ironic that taxpayers helped bail out Chrysler yet they just recently sued our High School  over their Rams logo. It was too similar. I guess they were worried the High School might start making cars or something.  Anyway now after years of having it we can use more taxpayer money to change the logo on everything so that it doesn't offend.

This seems pretty much on par with  how the rest of the country feels. We help the rich companies and they can't wait to screw us. Right or wrong Obama gets the blame because he is the one helping them without trickling down.  It's kind of  funny because it comes off looking just like what the democrats preach against.

I'm not saying that is what is happening but that is how I believe it is being perceived. 

I agree that the perception of greed and corruption is hurting Obama and this plan. The zip code mistakes did not help either.
I give the spin doctors on Fox credit as they have collectively moved the TARP out of peoples minds and made it all Obamas fault.

oh , get over yourself.  whats wrong with you anyway?   here i am trying to be civil ,and polite, and you take it as a personal  insult ? i say i apologize , if i insulted you , i say  i respect you , and your opinion , and this is your response?  i see people saying worse things on this board, than the term "sweetie" . (which was meant in the politest form) i think i'm the one who should be insulted. so much for being nice.

which events were those? got a pen and a few hours?

List of terrorist attacks under Clinton's watch.
Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

July 27, 1996 - A pipe bomb explodes during the Olympic games in Atlanta, killing one person and wounding 111.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.


Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.


April 19, 1995 - A car bomb destroys the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and wounding over 600. guess you dont have to be foreign to be a terrorist.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

and how did our hero , clinton handle it? by getting blown in the oval office. yep! that scared the shit out of those terrorists , boy!

list of terrorist attacks under bush's watch after inheriting 9/11?   
  0.

I would have been insulted if that were directed towards me.  It would be like someone calling you "boy" or something similar.

give me a break. do you realize how silly that sounds? all i ever say on here is how i respect everone and thier opinion. why would anyone take that as an insult? come on now. you people are killing me.

my supposed "insulting" quote :

"^^^^^sweetie, i'm not arguing . and i certainly mean no disrespect to you or anyone on this board. nor do intend to insult anyone. so , my apologies if i did. i simply post my opinion and i say  it with the utmost respect of your, and everyone elses opinion ."


 how does that decipher into an insult? anyone?    nutty people.... i swear.

The term "sweetie" when used by men that don't aren't familiar with a woman is way to put a woman in their place. It downplays a woman's power and reduces her to something cutesy. Just las StL FinFan said it's the same as calling someone "boy".  When Obama called a reporter sweetie everyone was up in arms and called him to task as they should have. He called and appologized for calling her sweetie. Apparently, you missed that.

As I stated earlier, you don't know me. I'm not your "sweetie" nor anyone elses. You want to be nice? Call my by my freaking name.

not anymore "sweetie". youre twisted, and i'm done being nice.  you see where that got me . been there , done that. no .....how about ...GO FUCK YOURSELF!

Yes. I'm twisted because I prefer to be called by my name and not deratory put downs used by men for years to put women in their place.

And now I rest my case on why I don't deal with teabaggers.

You are once again avoiding the question. You stated that Obama has made this country worse in one year than Bush did in eight.So I will ask you again, what specific legislation has Obama sponsored and gotten through that has eroded our rights or actually made the economic crisis worse or is worse than what Bush pushed through.

no , youre just plain twisted. the proof is in the posts. i was trying to be nice. you wouldnt let it happen. you always have a  nasty, snide, condescending remark.  so who's wrong here? there was no good reason for any of your remarks , other than to be bitter and hateful. so dont give me  any of this teabagger shit.

my answer you quoted was a response to  spider dan's post, which read "which events were those?". pertaining to clintons blind eye.towards terrorism. i believe i anwered the question

No. When I asked it became a diatribe against Obama and a list of things the Clinton did or did not do.
You have emphatically stated that Obama's single year in office has hurt this country more than Bush's eight. All I am asking is what has Obama and only Obama done to damage this country so badly in your opinion. So evidence would be great too.

Sorry this accidently got un locked....