Tuesday, January 19, 2010



Anonymous said...

I agree, not knowing anything about this guy I have a question. Will he automatically join the rest of the republicans and vote against everything so nothing will get done or will he actually vote on the merits of things.

Irina said...

Here is a Republican ticket for you in the next presidential election - Sarah Palin and Scott Brown, not necessarily in this sequence. It'll be unbeatable.

Howard said...

We'll have to wait and see how he votes. I'm not hopeful. His stated positions are all GOP (pro-waterboarding, for healthcare but not this one, etc.)

I agree that Brown/Palin would beat Coakley again, not so sure about Obama.

Anonymous said...

CRAP....you ain't kiddin; crap is right.

The Democrats and Obama have been sledgehammered in the last three state (Va, NJ and MA) elections....plain and simple.

He (and his fellow Dems) have failed miserably to connect with what's left of the blue collar working class (primarily male) voter and they paid for it, especially in Massachusettes.

Like I said months ago, Obama missed his golden chance to align the Democratic party with ordinary working stiffs when Barack, et. al., chose to align themselves with Wall Street over Main Street.

Nowwwww you will hear Obama and the Dems start to wail and moan about Wall Street excesses, bonuses and greed. And they might even take some real action.

Sorry...too little too late. He only had one chance to make a first impression and only one chance to gain the working man's trust and he blew it.

Howard said...

Seriously, this was a senate election not a presidential one. I'm sorry Obama hasn't lived up to your expectations, he hasn't quite to mine either, though I think I think more highly of him than you. Still I find your repetitive negativity on him as grating as Coakley's ads.

He's clearly better than Bush was and I think he's much better than McCain would have been. I think this fairly sums up the first year though it leaves out the change in stem cell research funding and his response in Haiti.

Dems were finally talking openly about wall street reforms in the last few weeks (and have been working on legislation for the last few months). Yes much of it is watered down. Maybe now it will keep more of its teeth.

Sill I think the biggest thing that needs to happen is campaign finance reform. That (and fillibuster reform) is what will allow congress to function. Bill Moyer's a couple of weeks ago had a good episode on this.

Karl said...

One thing to keep in mind is that this is only a short term position. I believe Brown won on the same platform Obama did - change. Maybe next time the Dem's will take the time to consider a candidate and not just put up the next person in the line of the party hierarchy. Think back to how that worked out for Hillary. Brown has about 2 years to demonstrate he can be independent minded and act in the interest of MA as he's claimed. (I am curious to see how he works with Kerry in this regard.) If he can do this, then he was the right choice for the state and be best thing for the country - despite his views on the issues.

Anonymous said...


Howard said...

I agree with a fair amount of what's in that article but not all of it.

Brown didn't mention he was a republican at all so saying Obama's "refusal ever to utter the words 'I am a Democrat'" is a problem seems contradictory (and I'm not sure it's factually true at all).

And yes, Dems lost governors in NJ and VA but they also won 5 congressional elections in 2009 (two each in CA and NY and one in IL). I don't know much about the VA election (aside from the fact it's not normally a D state) but in NJ I think Corzine had some (ethics) issues that hurt his campaign.

People are certainly upset with things. The left wants Obama and Dems to do more, the right is scared that he's a Kenyan born socialist with ties to al Qaeda who wants to kill grannie while letting the government interfere with their medicare (or something).

But I think 10% unemployment is always hard on the incumbent party. It's why I think the stimulus should have been bigger. The right was going to complain about deficits anyway. And again, a better candidate than Coakley probably would have won.

Still I find the idea of thinking the Dems aren't doing enough so we'll make it even harder for them to be naive. That's why I'm not so sure that's what the voters were doing vs just not liking Coakley enough to elect her. I could be wrong on that but there aren't a lot of teabaggers here. The complaints against Obama would be that he's not progressive enough.

I had a friend who after Bush won in 2004 said that's it, the Dems will never be in the majority again because the right "breeds faster than we do". Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but "sledgehammered", "too little too late" and blew his first impression (it is a 4 year term), are too fatalistic for me.

Obama needs to speak out more about why he has his positions and lead more in getting things through Congress. He also needs to not start out his bargaining having already conceded everything of merit out of his proposals. Politics is about concessions, but the end results still have to be at least somewhat worthwhile.

Karl, I'm not sure how to reconcile 'working with Kerry in MA's interest' and 'regardless of his views on the issues'. The RNC didn't help him much in the campaign but he'll be a star in the party now so they'll woo him. If he does vote his conscious and that's been 96% aligned with the GOP in the past (according to Coakley ads) then I don't see him 'working with Kerry' all that much. Fortunately for Kerry he's not up for re-election till 2014.