![[Masthead]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ |
|
 Email link
 Read comments (39)
 Blog archive
 Share link
Democrats Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory... againPosted Thursday, January 21, 2010, at 12:11 PM
Never EVER underestimate the ability of a Democrat to lose a sure thing. By selecting Coakley for the Massachusetts senate seat and failing to provide the progressive reforms voters demanded; the Dems lost their Senate super-majority and potentially the ability to enact health care reform.
With Scott P. Brown taking the 41st republican senate seat, the GOP is now set to regain its title of the Grand Obstructionist Party. 41 GOP seats could stop reform dead in its tracks. And I couldn't be happier. Well, maybe a little. Before I explain, let's take a look at this previously unknown character in Massachusetts politics. Scott P. Brown has a truck. Apparently that is an important part of his platform. His campaign commercial started with "I'm Scott Brown, this is my truck". During his victory speech, the truck was mentioned more times than Brown's wife, their daughters, his party or specific policies. Brown did mention that his daughters were up for grabs. It was understood that his truck was not. The truck was mentioned in more than 200 stories during the campaign. Link Who needs policy ideas when you have a prop? Let's look at Scott Brown, the man behind the truck: Scott Brown has vowed to fight health care reform. Scott Brown has opposed reigning in the bonuses Wall Street execs gave themselves from the bailout money (and got plenty of Wall Street support in return.) Scott Brown was one out of only three legislators who voted to deny financial aid to 9-11 rescue volunteers, citing "priorities" as the reason. Brown voted for tax subsidies for a golf course in the same month. Priorities indeed! Link Scott P. Brown campaigned on the conspiracy theory that the Dems would refuse to seat him until after January, thus keeping him from the health care vote. Reality states that by law, election officials must wait 10 days after the election for military and overseas ballots. Also, by law, an additional five days (totaling 15 after the election) are required for cities and towns to verify and report ballots. Harry Reid has already stated that he's open to waiting until Brown has been seated to vote for health care reform. Other prominent Dems have called for the same thing. Yes, Scott, you will have to wait until February to be seated, but there's no conspiracy. Link So how could a guy with a record like this get elected to Kennedy's seat? First, you need a weak opponent. And Coakley was a terrible candidate. Terrible isn't a strong enough word. Her sense of entitlement to the seat prevented her from campaigning vigorously and therefore, I shed no tears from her loss. But Brown had more than the health insurance profiteers and Wall Street predators on his side. He had the backing of the Republican persuasive media machine: free campaign ads disguised as news. Media Matters did a nice job of documenting the effort. Fox even allowed Brown to falsely suggest health reform will limit mammograms and cervical cancer screenings. Not quite as catchy as "death panels", but it'll do. To be fair, Fox"news" resident conspiracy theorist has suggested that "This one [Brown]could end with a dead intern". So why am I so pleased that this anti-reform shill for Big Business won the senate seat? Because if health care reform fails; we, as a nation, may learn a lesson that communicates more clearly to the public than Rupert Murdoch's propaganda machine. As it stands now, our health care system is unsustainable. Without health care reform, the situation will not improve. Without health care reform, the economy will also get worse. Maybe things will get so bad that voters who are dazzled by trucks, mooseburgers and platitudes may start paying attention and suddenly realize that they're voting against their own best interest. A decade ago, one party saw the trend and tried to reform the healthcare system before we got where we are today. The opposition labeled it "Hillary Care" and toted out the thousands of pages legislation and scared the bejeebers out of voters with it. Today, they label it "Obama Care" and tote out the thousands of pages of legislation and scare the bejeebers out of voters again. Maybe the Dems will lose the majorities in the House and Senate. Maybe we'll be treated to another 8 years of corporatist protectionism masquerading as conservatism. Maybe we'll see things continue on the path left by the last administration. And maybe... just maybe... someone in the future will attempt reform again and the defenders of the status quo will again label it "so-and-so-care" and use the same scare tactics all over again. But maybe then, voters will notice the pattern and see through the charade. And that possibility makes me happy. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Owner and founder of a liberal/progressive online news aggregator, former candidate for State Representative, media reform activist, internet communications consultant.
Hot topics Change I can believe in: Environmental Edition(8 ~ 7:03 PM, Mar 16)
A Socialist Party Platform
A Return to Fiscal Responsibility
Random Charts, Graphics, Facts and Observations
Dumbing Down America... One Hannity at a Time
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
![[Feed icon]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
The color of reason and victory in health care is Brown.
Now, maybe we can have real health care reform without a government takeover. That would be nice.
I never thought this win, a Republican of all things, in Massachusetts of all "blue" places, was possible. Tuesdays night I was ROTFLMAO!
"Maybe it just goes to show the average voter really doesn't know what they are doing."
That's true and because of that we get Bobo, the Post Turtle.
The supreme court overrules. PACS devour.
"The supreme court overrules. PACS devour."
Off topic but you are wrong. Freedom of speech is partially restored.
Let's save the topic of the Latest SCOTUS ruling for the next blog entry. Pilot, you can then enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate the faulty logic and intellectual dishonesty necessary to be on the losing end of that argument, too.
OK, it's a date.
Bobo the post turtle is dead. It became a dead horse months ago. Not sure how it transformed, but it did. So now we have a dead horse on top of a post that can't be rendered and must be buried or left to the environment to take care of it. Stinks doesn't it.
ADV, good one.
....and yes, it does stink.
Amusing post. Not very deep, but amusing. It's been fun to watch the Democratic blame game and TJ's talking points are right out of Huffpo or the Kos.
1. Throw the candidate under the bus - check. How many Democratic candidates fit under a bus?
2. Blame Fox News - check. Because we all know this works in all cases.
3. Blame right wing scare tactics - check. Even though the more the American people know about the health care bill, the lower it drops in popularity.
4. Insult the voters - check. Apparently Mass voters only voted for Brown because he owns a truck. They obviously aren't smart enough to vote on the issues.
5. Make fun of the winner - check.
The exact same thing happened in Virginia and New Jersey. As long as the Dems refuse to accept responsibility for these mounting losses, they will continue.
Scott Brown for Nobel Peace Prize!
ELEPHANTS, DONKEYS, "BULL MOOSE", OH MY!
or TeddyCare, HiliaryCare, ObamaCare, CommiCare YIKES.
In the legislative process regarding the issue of health care reform, it just happens to be that the elephants have historically been the "Grand Obstructionist Party". Ironically, the elephants began by thwarting an effort by one of their own icons. As a member of the "Bull Moose", aka the Progressive party of 1912, Teddy Roosevelt, as its leader supported a platform with the cause of health care reform a central party issue. Possibly to encourage a bipartisan effort, Obama referenced this effort last March--see politfact link below.
The "Bull Moose" believed
"The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice," the platform said. "We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for ... the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."
Regarding the specifics of health care reform the plaform also said: "We favor the union of all the existing agencies of the Federal Government dealing with the public health into a single national health service without discrimination against or for any one set of therapeutic methods, school of medicine, or school of healing with such additional powers as may be necessary to enable it to perform efficiently such duties in the protection of the public from preventable diseases ..."
Other planks in the platform proposed reeling in corruption, child labor laws, women's suffrage,conservation, establishing an inheritance tax, even allowing "coal and other natural resources of Alaska should be opened to development at once. They are owned by the people of the United States, and are safe from monopoly, waste or destruction only while so owned."
This might have been the Republican National platform if the voice of the voters was upheld. "Theodore Roosevelt won the Republican primaries in 1912. But in the first year of presidential primaries the voters were not allowed to "speak" in most states. The Republican National Committee, dominated by President Taft's supporters, had the power to decide the delegate disputes."
"About the best that could be said for the GOP adjudication process was that Taft had stolen a majority "fair and square." That is to say, what was done was probably legal , if barely so in many delegate cases. But there were no law suits and trials. The courts seldom got involved in party disputes in those days."
So Roosevelt led the progressive elements out of the Republican party and formed the progressive "Bull Moose" party.
"The party's platform should have appealed strongly to blacks, intellectuals, and labor union members, but the support given them by the Communist Party was used against them by both major parties."
Wilson won the election. The GOP lost, but not before cementing its moniker as "Grand Obstructionist Party". TeddyCare, HillaryCare and ObamaCare.
On to find bigger game. But do any progressives exist in the Elephant party? Surely, I Beck!
sources:
http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/bu...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1755.h...
TJ, I support your passion, but challenge your thinking. I would agree we need healthcare reform. But his goal appears to be shove universal health care down our throat. Most people do not want it.
Obama has 4 years at his presidency, and with the popularity he started out with, he possibly has/had 8 years. Why not first start out with true cost saving reforms in good faith:
1. Figure out how to prevent all of the fraud that goes on in Medicare/Medicaid. Billions of dollars involved.
2. Get the lawyers out of our healthcare system. Healthcare isn't an exact science. There are multiple factors that go into our good health. Symptoms fit into multiple diseases. Many times, medicine is a process of eliminating diseases or causes of symptoms. But after a doctor is sued once, or sees another doctor sued, the doctors natural reaction is to order every test under the sun to rule out a potential lawsuit. Ask any doctor; they will tell you this happens all day long.
Heart disease is an example. There are different drugs to treat high blood pressure and other heart related problems. Some are very expensive, some are cheaper. If one drug is so good, we should totally eliminate the cheaper/less effective drugs. Just run up our national health bill....or do we only allow the cheapest drug? Now you have no pharmaceutical companies doing research because the government won't approve it's use because of cost.
I drifted on this point, but it is a fact that lawsuits run up the cost of healthcare, and 30% of that costs get diverted to lawyers pockets.
Both of these points should have been a starting point of any healthcare bill. People would have believed in the bill more if they saw some honest effort at lowering costs. Universal health scares the hell out of most people. It smacks in the face of vote buying that the "compassionate Democrats" like spreading out across our nation without worrying about how it affects our international competitiveness. We keep exporting jobs because of all of this "compassion." Fact is, unless you can get all of the third world countries to spend the same percentage of their GNP on healthcare(and you can insert any other program such as an Energy tax), we will be running our country into the ground so deep, we won't be able to climb out of it.
CC, nice post. I liked your ideas and agree that there current system proposed by Bobo, the Post Turtle just scares the bejezus out of most of us.
Succinctly, I don't trust the government to have MY best interest as theirs.
CitizenConcerned, you raise a very valid point. There are several things in the health care bills that both parties will accept and citizens strongly support. And there has been talk about only doing those items in a much smaller bill and moving forward from there. I'm with you on that.
You also mentioned malpractice suits. Canada has done a bang up job on that issue:
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check
http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1021...
I'm really confused by your last paragraph. You blame our job loss on "compassionate Democrats". I've never heard that term or seen that blame cast, but I have seen decades of an assault on the middle class disguised as "free trade" and "free market".
When Ronald Reagan took office, the USA was the world's number 1 importer of raw materials and the world's number 1 exporter of finished goods. By the time Reagan left office, we were the #1 exporter of raw materials and the #1 importer of finished goods. So I would say that the trend started there and hasn't stopped yet. Clinton didn't start this mess; he just kept the ball rolling. I don't think that the problem is Democrats or Republicans. The problem, in my view, is multinational corporations that have bought out our representation.
Pilot, please stop dodging the question: http://www.lemarssentinel.com/blogs/1295...
"1. Figure out how to prevent all of the fraud that goes on in Medicare/Medicaid. Billions of dollars involved."
Unsourced. Where is the definition of Medicare/Medicaid fraud been made? Hint: http://www.CMS.gov
"2. Get the lawyers out of our healthcare system..."
You would like Canadian System --Or If you want the insurance companies increase their profits put caps on malpractice. Should people suffer for someonelse's profit?
"Canada keeps malpractice cost in check"
http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1021...
http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/2010...
Most Children's fears are ameliorated when they have solid facts or information. There is no reasonable discourse without them, it's like the din from a colony of flightless bird's or even the single solitary quack.
Get some facts, then you may have the foundation for an argument. Until then. ;)
Pilot, please stop dodging the question: http://www.lemarssentinel.com/blogs/1295...
I'm old. What was the question?
TJ, if you mean...."If King's comments disgust you as much as they do me...."
Actually they don't. I see no reason what so ever to grant Haitians TPS that are already here illegally. They should be rounded up an unceremoniously returned to Haiti. I grant that now is not the best time to do this but they have no legal right to be here. As for granting other Haitians temporary legal status because they were and continue to be victims of this massive earthquake, I have no problem.
I wish you would tell me and the readers, why those Haitian already here illegally should be given legal status because of this earthquake back in the country they abandoned.
Pilot, I wish you would tell me and the readers, where I said those Haitian [sic] already here illegally should be given legal status because of this earthquake back in the country they abandoned.
And by "abandoned", I'm sure you meant "are refugees from". Interesting slanter you chose there. That's twice now that you've used it.
The question you are dodging is where I asked you to provide an example of where I have misrepresented opinion as fact, as you claim I often do.
Now just to clarify... Because I know how you like to invent your own definitions, read the following sentence very carefully: Provide an example where I have misrepresented opinion as fact. Got that? Don't go on about how you don't know the difference or how there is no difference. This is your glowing moment in the spotlight. Don't blow it. Provide an example of where I have misrepresented opinion as fact. C'mon, buddy! You can do it!
"Random Charts, Graphics, Facts and Observations"
Just about everything in your OP of that blog is opinion vice fact. You might say it is fact because it was published somewhere . Might even be published by the Federal Government but it is opinion given as fact.
p.s. I don't trust our Federal Government. I don't trust Bobo, the Post Turtle.
Good grief, man. You buy into the spin from the Bobo, The Post Turtle administration that the reason a Republican won in Massachusetts is because the electorate there are still angry at Bush(43).
OK, class, can we say "delusional"?
OK, pilot. Good start. Good job. You're almost there. C'mon buddy! I know you can do this! Everyone is watching. This is your chance to really show how dishonest I am. Now give an example. Point out one graph or chart that was opinion and where I claimed it was fact. This should be really easy since, as you pointed out, "just about everything" in that blog entry is "opinion vice fact". Just give one solid example and show us how it's not fact, but opinion.
Let me help you. Here's an example - fill in the blanks: "This chart of objective data showing the examples of Universal Healthcare around the world is opinion because ___________" and T.J. Templeton misrepresented it as fact when he said___________".
C'mon man, we're all pulling for you! You can do this!
"C'mon man, we're all pulling for you!"
Pull yourself.
Your posts are opinion. That's OK, so are mine. The difference is I know my posts are opinion. You? Not so much.
However, our little discussion is now, thankfully, OBE*. Bobo, the Post Turtle and the 111th Congress have so ruined the economy that we no longer have the economy to reform anything. Bobo Care is dead. Thank you Massachusetts.
* Overcome By Events
C'mon now. Stay on target. Don't get distracted. Don't try to change the subject. I really think you are making progress.
Let's take a step back and make sure you know what you are looking for.
Facts are things that can be verified by a third party. As an example: "There are 10 people in that room". This is an example of a fact. Anyone can walk into the room and count that there are, indeed, 10 people in the room.
Opinions are subjective observations. As an example: "There are too many people in that room". That statement cannot be verified by a third party because it is a relative statement that is based upon the observer's perspective.
With that established; let's continue. You have claimed (in my blog) that I "rarely tell the truth" and consistently "misrepresent opinions as facts". You've also gone so far to say that "just about everything" in the previous blog entry entitled "Random Graphs, Charts, Facts and Observations" was "opinion vice fact". I assume you meant "opinion vs. Fact."
So now I'm asking you to present one single example where I have misrepresented opinion as fact. Just one. You can do this. I know you can. I have great faith in you. We're all rooting for you. Don't let us down.
To assist you; I have been able to locate two solid examples of opinion being misrepresented as fact in the comments section of my blog. Feel free to use them as a template or example. If you look at the comments here:
http://www.lemarssentinel.com/blogs/1295...
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 11:11 a commenter took issue with some of the objective data that I had presented and offered up a speculative opinion article from the New York Times as a rebuttal. They presented this opinion piece as fact, in effort to support their argument.
Later, on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 9:20 AM; you'll see that a commenter again presented another speculative opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal as though it were fact. Feel free to use that as an example as well.
Oh. I just realized... you are the author of those two comments. Well, that must be embarrassing.
If this is difficult for you, don't feel limited to the most recent blog entries. Feel free to pull from anything I've ever posted here. I've been writing for more than a year and at a rate of about once a week. So you should have about 50 blog entries to find and document one solid example of myself misrepresenting opinion as fact.
Good luck and Godspeed.
You just did.
So you're throwing in the towel? How embarrassing for you.
Dear readers, I'd like to apologize for this lengthy, and at times childish, exchange between myself and Pilot.
But I did this for a reason. I wanted to use this opportunity to demonstrate a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that one feels when their personal belief system is challenged and the steps they will take to preserve an illogical and irrational mindset in the face of contradictory evidence.
I presented factual objective data that made Pilot uncomfortable. Instead of admitting to himself that he was wrong or that the ideology that he clings to may be imperfect, he instead attacked the credibility of the person presenting the data. He even went so far as to claim that verifiable statistics are matters of "opinion".
What's interesting to me is where else cognitive dissonance is often found. Members of cults and victims of brainwashing will often display the same behavior by becoming hostile when their beliefs are challenged. Hostility and denial are the primary responses which later leads to the victim literally plugging their ears and closing their eyes like a child and making noise so that the challenge to their paradigm can't be experienced.
Similarly, we were treated to the online version of this by Pilot's constant interjection of strawman arguments and attempts to change the subject. But when finally pinned down to present proof of his faulty argument, he devolved into a childlike "BECAUSE I SAY SO".
This is a perfect text book example of cognitive dissonance in action.
Pilot, I'm really sorry to have put you through all of that just to make an academic demonstration, but you seemed intent on fouling up the discussions of this blog and smearing my credibility, so I figured I'd make the best of it. Thanks.
The health care bill which is being rammed down the throats of the formerly unsuspecting citizens of this country, is hopefully dead.
The election of Mr. Brown of Massachusetts was, hopefully, the end of this madness.
I am NOT quiting the argument. The situation has changed. Bobo Care is dead....hopfully.
Yes, that is was three "hopefully's" in a row.
That's because I am hopeful.
Hope.
NOV 2010.
Yes we can.
"Pilot, I'm really sorry to have put you through all of that just to make an academic demonstration, but you seemed intent on fouling up the discussions of this blog and smearing my credibility, so I figured I'd make the best of it."
You so funny.
I'm not sorry at all. I love your attempts to put me in my place. LOL!
I win!
Of course you do, Pilot. Of course you do.
I win?
Actually the American people win. I'm just one of the people....you too.
I wonder what list of silliness the Bobo will have for us tonight. The fight is never over.
I and most Americans are NOT against health care reform, just this current one. It is NOT health care reform. It's all about control and money, i.e., power and PR for Democrats.
The bottom line is that the Liberals/Democrats are more interested in glory for themselves than getting real health care reform for all Americans.
Why would I say this? Easy, it's true. OK, who said the following:
"One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.
In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.
Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.
Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.
Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk."
It shouldn't be too hard for anyone that knows a bit of history.
I hear the penguins again, but I can't make sense of the cacophony.
Very unlike the call to bipartisanship made by the President.
"*" I didn't choose to tackle this issue [health care] to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics."
(AP )
*"This problem is not going away.... I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber."
*"If the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a supermajority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership."
*" Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year."
*" The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment, to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more."
Yup, Bobo, the Post Turtle, calls for bi-partisanship then immediately says the Republicans are at fault for all his problems. Way ta go there Bobo.
Hope.
NOV 2010.
Yes we can!
If the shoe fits.
Stimulating retort.
Out.
The 1974 rhetorical quip that "no legislation reached my desk" by President Richard M Nixon regarding his proposed health care legislation Comprehensive Health Insurance Program (CHIP) shows none of the contrite, self deprecating comments of past president or current presidents. In 1994 after big Democratic losses at the midterm and the defeat of "Hillary Care" Clinton placed the bulls-eye on himself when he said "I am frank to say that I have made my mistakes." Notwithstanding, Obama's tendency to point finger for the conditions he inherited when he took office, for the difficulties he faced during his first year of office, nobody can say he blamed Republican obstructionism when he said "Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved."
"One year of Watergate is enough," President Nixon declared in his State of the Union address in January 1974. But the embattled president could not put the issue behind him. If he could have, it's quite possible that CHIP legislation would have reached his desk. One "Liberal" Senator made a valiant "dash" to the "Center" to make it happen. Ironically,Ted Kennedy, couldn't muster a big enough coalition to overcome the political wranglings that ultimately stopped the legislation from reaching the Executive Office.
Who will come from the opposition party and bring a "better approach" for health care reform to the Executive office?
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking...
Heh heh. Well played boss.
And now you have the opposition willing to claim that his hair is NOT on fire!
Or his pants.
"Obama was not about to socialize American medicine. The president's health-care plan was to the right of where Richard Nixon was on the issue more than 35 years ago."
Pants or Hair who knows; but its becoming more apparent a moderate centrist plan became totally "swift boated", grounded and flightless in the loony bin of liberal social theory.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/232167
"flightless in the loony bin"
Nice!
That's an important observation regarding how far our political spectrum has shifted. Democratic initiatives that are to the right of where Republicans were a few decades ago are now decried as socialist and communist by today's right wing. I've often joked that anything to the left of Mussolini is considered communist these days by the Fox"news" crowd. It looks as though I was right... um... correct.
It's interesting to me that the Blue Dog Democrats are called "Centrists" or "Moderates". This implies that the other Democrats are not anywhere near center, and are not very moderate.
Extra interesting because these Blue Dogs display very conservative politics. These are Conservative Democrats. People assume that Democrat means liberal. And these Blue dogs are not liberals. (Bringing the circle back around) They're Centrists!
Also, notice there are no Centrist, or Moderate Republicans. Used to be. In fact, there used to be a few Liberal Republicans! Not anymore!
The scale by which such things are measured has shifted quite markidly to the right. What used to be a moderate right, is now the center, and we call them, Blue Dogs!