READER COMMENTS ON
"Obama's Lefty Critics Killed Us In MA"
(84 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:16 am PT...
Actually I am thinking the main problem is exactly the opposite.
NOT ENOUGH of the as you call them "Lefty purest".
People in this country voted for change and what they got was Bush lite.
What we need to do is weed out the Blue Dawg nutbags and start putting in Green Party and Independents in their place.
Force the Democratic party to actually BE DEMOCRATS move them FAR LEFT and tell every one that strays towards the Reich YOUR GONE.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:27 am PT...
This site has a tradition of discussing ELECTION FRAUD and the truth about the corruption of the electoral process.
We should be talking about the signs that the hand count in MASS was going to the Dem when she conceded, and not a partisan blamefest against those who care most about the good of this country.
Schaeffer is, once again, totally off-base.
Of course, there are no exit polls in MASS for this election, so we will only have the corporate-owned MSM's spin on this election and how it was all about anti-corporate people.
The people are being gamed. Schaeffer is part of the gaming process. Please tell him to find another place to play.
If anything, this was a referendum on Rahm Emmanuel, and he should be fired this a.m. He WON'T be, but he SHOULD be. Of course, it wouldn't matter if the person who picked him (and the other banker/corporatist who run the country) doesn't change his POV.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:44 am PT...
Isn't that how electoral politics in America works ?
Obama isn't deserving of our support and loyalty unless he earns it. Obama has neglected his left wing base in favor of his corporate cronies.
Why should we blindly support Obama without critically holding his ass to the fire ?
*Obama's FISA vote was troubling...the left gave him a pass.
*Obama's support of Wall Street and Banks to the tune of $700 billion over his support of Mainstreet...was indeed troubling...but we gave him a pass.
*Obama's appointment of Goldman Sachs lobbyists to the treasury was surely troubling...but we gave him a pass.
*Obama not even fighting for a public option in healthcare was alarming...we started paying closer attention.
*Obama's Afghanistan escalation was telling. Obama's use of W Bush like fear based rhetoric was just about all we could take...
Apologies Frank...but if Obama wonders what happened yesterday in Massachusetts....tell him to go look in the mirror.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:45 am PT...
Oh, please, Frank. Obama and the rest of the corporate sector of the Democratic Party shot themselves in the foot the moment they decided to exchange "change we can believe in" for corporate campaign contributions.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:48 am PT...
Mr. Schaeffer: finger pointing is not necessary in this situation. Your tone becomes quite tiresome. We all appreciate a point of view, but the truth is there is ELECTION FRAUD going on everywhere and the democratic ESTABLISHMENT is doing NOTHING. Lots of irregularities during the presidential primaries. Before blaming the 'Lefties' PLEASE educate yourself on the complexities of election FRAUDm don't be taken in by the Dems OR the Repubs OR the religious fanatics. Your pendulum may have swung but you need to find a BALANCE of information! Thanks all. Back to sleep now .
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:50 am PT...
No great surprise that Frank misses the mark yet again. In fact, Frank, your pieces continue to decrease in quality and substance.
The Obama administration shot itself in the foot, as it was clear they were going to do not long after the inauguration.
You want an administration that is cozy with corporate interests, then vote that way. It is clear that plenty of us don't.
The egregious "not counting of the votes" aside...THAT is democracy, and I guess the Democrats had better get used to it.
They were given a mandate by the electorate in 2008. They blew it by playing politics as usual. Unless they figure that shit out, they'll lose more seats, and I'll not shed a tear.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:51 am PT...
You stand corrected. The problem was Dems governed from the middle. They watered-down the stimulus, hence less job creation. Obama kept traitor's Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke and he didn't take on Wall Street. Were exactly was the change i had voted for. The Dems were supposed to be economic populists, instead, the GOP ran as cultural populists. Mr Schaeffer has self-admittedly had the blinder's on for many years, so it may take him a while longer to see clearly.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:58 am PT...
Is this a satire post? Those progressive voters, whose passion helped elect Obama, are hardly to blame. Rather, I see it as a combination of a strangely confused President and a painfully obsequious Democratic Party unwilling to fulfill their constituents desires. The President was quick and decisive to take tort reform off the table, quick to take Bush crimes investigations off the table, quick to support some of the most pernicious Bush policies (warrantless wiretapping and surveillance,just to name a few) while at the same time taking a hands-off approach to health care (with the exception of cutting a sweet deal with big Pharma). Mr. Schaeffer says "The Left of the progressive movement couldn’t wait patiently for change." How long should we wait? How many more must die or go bankrupt? Isn't this a vital issue? We can spend a trillion dollars fighting a phony "global war on terror" in foreign lands but not one cent for the health of our own citizens?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:06 am PT...
And another thing Frank...
Personally I highly resent you smearing the left as "haters"
Could you please be more hysterical ?
get a grip Frank...Obama got the support he deserved.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:07 am PT...
Actually, when talking about the lesser of two evils, you don't pick the most evil, because the lesser evil one doesn't do exactly what you want. We just got out of 8 years of hell, and now people are going to vote for that jerkwad? I still think that these results are quite suspect. How could the entire electorate change so quickly and so dramatically? And come on, people, expecting revolution is naive. You're just going to have to accept that the change will come slower than you would like. Fuck, if those a-holes get ahold of a bunch of seats, you will never see the voting problem fixed, no matter how much you complain. Granted, it won't be easy with the dickhead democrats we have right now, but there is *no* chance of it with the republicans. Anyone that votes for a republican after all the crap we've been through because of *anything* the Obama administration did, or didn't do, is an idiot, and is willing to royally screw the country to make a political point.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:07 am PT...
This loss of a Senate seat is the culmination of the an attitude that took impeachment off the table the second the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate back in '06.
I noticed that the article is 'Uncategorized'. Might a suggest 'douchebag analysis' as a category?
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:07 am PT...
I'm not buying a New York gram of that cock and bull, Frank! I'm already thinking ahead to the 2012 primaries - it's Dean/Maddow for me! He wants to talk the talk, but he refuses to walk the walk. To paraphrase a hideous (in retrospect) ad nauseam them: Yes he can - but it seems he just plain doesn't want to. You are blaming the victims, and I'd appreciate it if you'd cut that crap out. Just why you seem so intent on splitting the left further than it already is, well, that's a mystery to me, but we can all do without that. I say force the Republicans to actually stand up in the senate and let the American people watch and hear them arguing that insurance companies are more important than the health and well being of the people. Then, finally, withdraw the heinous bill and craft a new one, with single payer, under which everyone is covered. It works great everywhere else in the developed world, and it can work in the US, too. Here in the formerly communist Czech Republic I plunk down about 60 bucks a month and have access to high-tech medical, dental, and eye care - yes, there's a co-pay when you're hospitalized (about $3.50 a day), and each trip to the doctor's costs about $1.50. It may be true that additional taxes would be required to implement such a program in the U$, but that would be accompanied by an enormous decrease in everyone's premiums and co-pays. As far as I'm concerned, the honeymoon's over, and if Abomina wants to remain on the political scene he'd better turn about 180 degrees on esentially every issue he's touched, and he'd better do it soon. Soon he's going to be hearing "Move on brother, or we'll move over you!"
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:08 am PT...
Although this is supposed to be a blog uncovering election fraud, which I suppose tapers into political fraud and corruption of other sorts, while we are on the subject, I will have to address this one:
The Left of the progressive movement couldn’t wait patiently for change.
Whatever kind of change do you speak of? The change from having mostly to somewhat legalized abortions and shaky but mostly useful reproductive healthcare to having systematically unobtainable abortions and nonsensical, medieval reproductive healthcare, all sanctified by the GOP in Blue? Throwing women under the bus is not change I can "believe in." If that's where this corporatized excuse for a "health"care bill is going, not to mention, though implied in "corporatized," the ever-growing portion of my paycheck going to corporate cronies, then I have NO APOLOGIES for not throwing more of my money at Coakley and the Dems. Trust me, I was considering it...
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:10 am PT...
Chris Hooten @10
The left didn't vote for the GOP candidate...
The left stayed home. the Dems gave the left no reason to make the effort.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:10 am PT...
That's so funny. Sounds just like republicans defending bush 8, 6, 4 2 years ago.
The more things change...
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:12 am PT...
The point, Chris Hooten, is that we are NOT going to allow the Democrats to screw us ALSO. I highly doubt that any of the left voted for Brown. More than likely they just stayed at home to watch the fun. That's what I woulda done, and with no guilt whatsoever. This is a problem for the Democratic Party to solve, and the answer is quite clear, no rocket science needed:
"Quit T-bagging Wall Street, Prostitution is still illegal"
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:16 am PT...
No gay rights?
Don't worry Frank, the Log Cabin Republicans will take of that.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:21 am PT...
Why is it that whenever the Dems fail it's always the left's fault? An alternative argument would be that the democratic party is ignoring it's base & the voters who became energized during the 2008 campaign.
Could you please provide your list of the "Obama-Hating left?"
The official voting results tallied about 2.25 million votes in a state with over 6 million people meaning 3.75 million people didn't vote 1.17 million voted for Brown & 22k voted for Kennedy. The numbers show almost 5 million voters & potential voters who are responsible for the democrat not winning in MA.
I'm not sure whether we should consider Frank's analysis to be genuine given that his profile and posts could simply be a clever advertising campaign for his books.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:40 am PT...
Uhmm, wasn't it a fairly high turnout? People stayed home, huh? Bullshit. I don't think the votes were counted accurately. This was TED KENNEDY'S SEAT. I don't think they voted for the neo-turd. I think people thought this was too important to just sit on their hands and not vote.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:52 am PT...
When I voted for Ralph Nader,
I was blamed.
When do people in one party or another learn that they do not own my vote nor my mind?
I have my free will in a free democracy to vote how I want to.
Perhaps these "progressive democrats" can see past their noses and take some responsibility for the situation.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 8:16 am PT...
Chris Hooten @19
Sittng on one's hands and not voting...That is a vote.
get it ?
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 8:16 am PT...
Yeah, it's just like in 2000. Those of us who are the least powerful, in terms of representation, the ones who voted for Nader then, and however many progressives didn't vote here yesterday, the ones who have all the backing in the country according to what the polls say most American want, like single payer, money out of politics, serious commitment to the environment, etc, in other words what most Americans desperately want but are not getting, the ones who are exhorted to be the change cuz it's up to us, and then are never even invited to the fucking table on health care reform, and who can't get anybody to listen about fixing the corrupt voting system, it's OUR fucking fault when a bunch of lame ass Democrats who couldn't fart their way out of a paper bag after force feeding themselves beans and raw potatoes start "losing" unverifiable elections. Thanks, but no thanks, bub.
And I'm tired of that canard about don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good on health care reform. Here's the rebuttal to that.--
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 8:23 am PT...
Damn skippy we did! Did the right wait patiently for change when they had the reigns? NO!!! Why should we? If Obama and the dems want to retain power then they'd damn well better start paying attention to US, the base, who've been there all along! This should serve as a strong and much needed message to them!
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 1/20/2010 @ 8:27 am PT...
Assuming that the outcome actually reflects the will of MA voters --- an assumption that cannot be scientifically verified absent an actual (as opposed to virtual) count of the ballots) --- my take is almost identical to that provided by Robert Scheer in "What Massachusetts Got Right" where he concludes that the cause of this electoral results lies in Obama's having sold out those who voted for him in 2008 on the economy, "which Obama has sold out to Wall Street" and Obama's decision to push pseudo-health care reform based on the MA model.
It is significant that it was the voters of Massachusetts who have now derailed the Democrats’ efforts to revamp the country’s health care system by denying them the necessary 60th vote in the Senate, for these voters know the subject well.
Instead of blindly following the failed Massachusetts model, Obama should have insisted on an extension of the Medicare program to all who are willing to pay for it
To that I would add Obama's replacement of George W. Bush as the Commander-in-Chief of a perpetual, Orwellian "Global War on Terror" when he could have, instead, chosen peace --- to include a negotiated cease fire with the Taliban and an orderly and complete withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama's immense unpopularity has nothing to do with criticism from a Left which is seldom capable of piercing the electronic curtain erected by corporate television --- the primary source of information (disinformation) for most Americans. It is, instead, the product of the fact that Obama's policies reveal that the President is not "as advertised" during the 2008 campaign.
The only way that Obama and the corporate Dems can stave off defeat both in the 2010 mid-terms and the 2012 election is to reverse course; to become, by their actions and policies, "change we can believe in."
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 8:34 am PT...
Let me preface this by saying that I am indeed a liberal in thinking. But I think the problem has been the same for years, even when Bush was in office. The Democratics need a stiffer spine. They are always capitulating... giving a strong speech about how something "has to be done", then flailing around trying to accommodate the hardline thinkers on the Republican side for fear of not being "bipartisan". I think Dean said it correctly when he stated that "Bush would have gotten healthcare a long time ago". If we took a stronger stance, we could enact legislation that actually helps people, versus that which Bush and the Republican gang shoveled through.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 8:37 am PT...
I disagree entirely. I believe the Dems need to become MORE progressive. Things would be much different if Obama had seized his liberal mandate, pushed for an overhaul of the financial system and REAL change like single-payer health care and a full throated rebuke of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The Republicans call anything left of FOX News Socialism, let's give 'em something to complain about. I for one am not waiting patiently for change that never ever comes from a party that doesn't respect MY desires.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
I Hate Neocons
said on 1/20/2010 @ 8:47 am PT...
So, Frank, how much longer do you expect us "lefties" to keep our mouths shut, when it comes to all of the patty cake playing the Democrats have engaged in with the neocons, hmmm?? Surrendering the platform we all demanded, in the name of making nice with the republicans, has gotten us exactly what?
You still expect Democrats to kiss the rears of the neocon religious right, that exists today because of you. You can start by thanking yourself for breathing life into them all those years ago before your great political epiphany.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 8:54 am PT...
Frank, with all due respect - you have fallen into the dangerous, corporate media driven, post-election, blame-game meme (easy to do when you're dissppointed) - but you should know better. This is not okay.
You're going to stir the pot for a lot of reasons with this article, but for me your greatest offense is that you are writing this on an election integrity blog. The ink isn't even dry on our spreadsheets, yet, so WE DON'T KNOW WHO LEGITIMATELY WON and PROBABLY NEVER WILL. It's a guess, at best. (Bev Harris is reporting that of MA's 71 hand count locations, Coakley won with 51.12%, btw.)
Still, knowing what we know, to assign blame for this loss to the "ideological purist Left who have worked so hard to undermine the Obama presidency" is counter productive, at best. At worst, it is sheer lunacy, or idiocy.
The Bradblog is the one place I can come to find relevant articles related to real facts re: questionable elections. I'm so saddened to come here today to collect data and compare notes with my bright tribe, only to find instead this article that repeats the mendacious fallacies reported on everywhere else.
You really should read more (about election monitoring), or consult some E.I. folks (easy enough, we're all right here) before you publish garbage like this on Brad's site.
Regretting that this thread will produce more feedback / discussion / and rage in the comments than all the possibly bogus stats of this odiferous election which deserve attention /closer scrutiny.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 9:00 am PT...
Hey Frank, stop being an Obamapologist and wake up to the fact that the Dem party is in big trouble precisely BECAUSE they aren't even close to the progressive candidates they claimed to be. I'm glad you're a born-again democrat but you need to stick to criticizing the religious right, because that's the only subject you have any clue abou. The entire party took this election for granted, as they have taken the progressive base for granted by showing that they're nothing but Republican-lite corpocrats, with a few notable exceptions. You have NO right to criticize "purist" lefties, because these are the people who worked so hard to get Obama elected, only to be shoved aside once he got in office- in favor of the lobbyists and wall street players he railed AGAINST while campaigning.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 9:04 am PT...
Frank, while I am usually supportive of your views on religion, you are way off base on this subject. I agree with Earnest on this one. Lefties did not screw this up, Beltway Democrats did.
The D's were given a super-majority last election with a mandate to make real change in this country. They have squandered what the voters gave them. While there are many things that can wait or be done by "baby steps", Health care reform has been debated, adnauseam, for generations. Every other developed nation in the world has some form of universal health care that works better than our system. But the D's chose to fiddle around the edges of our defunct and corrupt system instead of making real change.
D's and Obama are on notice, start getting things done for the people or you will be replaced!
Close Gitmo, end DADT, get us out of Bush's wars, stop defending our war criminals, stop defending warrantless wire-tapping and start working for Main street instead of Wall street (and the rest of Corp America).
Prove to us the D's are different from the R's. Because right now we don't see it.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 9:04 am PT...
I just wanted to add that I'm really, really pissed about this.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 9:30 am PT...
Did Frank prematurely hit "publish", again?...
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 9:43 am PT...
Frank ! Your a saint ! But your just wrong about this election in MA. We Dems are not tough enough and have allowed ourselves to be bitch slapped by baucus,nelson twins,LIEberman,and DLC/blue dogs !
Voters in MA rebelled against no action talk only Obama and Senate ! Wall street and military industrial complex are being served and citizens are !
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 9:46 am PT...
Frank's analysis is way off the mark. Progressive leftists still voted yesterday, despite Obama's foot-dragging on their agenda. Over half the voters indicated they opposed the health care bill. Obama and Democrats own the failure 100%. It is their bill. So, it was Obama's insistence on health care reform NOW that lost the election.
Obama got elected, because voters were sick of Bush, and he was a very attractive alternative --- as a campaigner. Governing is vastly different, and the tough questions about how he would actually govern were never asked. He had the thinnest resume of any President in history. It's clear now that he is a very weak executive and his inexperience is glaring.
At this point, I see him limping along now for the next 3 years, and America cannot afford to lose this precious time. We will all suffer the consequences.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 9:46 am PT...
nk ! Your a saint ! But your just wrong about this election in MA. We Dems are not tough enough and have allowed ourselves to be bitch slapped by baucus,nelson twins,LIEberman,and DLC/blue dogs !
Voters in MA rebelled against no action talk only Obama and Senate ! Wall street and military industrial complex are being served and citizens are NOT!
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:07 am PT...
This presents a glorious opportunity to scrap the vile proposed legislation, craft and submit a single-payer bill, invoke reconciliation (I don't see how it is NOT a budgetary matter - it's just umpteen percent of the economy), and shove it through. Only the corrupt (relatively) few will get ehir noses out of joint. Since when is the health of the insurance leeches more important than the health of the citizenry???
I live in a formerly communist country, a land with a nasty reputation for corruption, but comprehensive health, dental, and eye care costs me about 60 bucks a month, and I'm a sexigenarian with hogh blood pressure! If the Czechs, and every other developed country in the world, besides the U$, can do it, whatever could the problem in America be, if not its corrupt culture, where money is the subject of worship and devotion? What are all those idiots really talking about when they speak of their "values"??? I'm sure glad I don't support this band of thieves with my hard-earned tax money! America: Save it or Screw it!
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:13 am PT...
It looks like Diebold defeated the Democrats in Massachusetts. It is important that the so-called left grow a backbone and stick to its core principals, not back away from them as Frank Schaeffer suggests. The planet is at stake, Frank. Now is not the time to become spineless mealy-mouthed corporate sycophants (aka the Democratic Party). Barack Obama is Bush Presidency III, and most Democrats offer a change of image and tune, perhaps, but not a change of substance. The USA is governed by corporate whores, and becoming increasingly irrelevant, thanks the the kind of compromise you advocate.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:14 am PT...
Oh yes, invoke the glorious European health system --- unless, of course, you're talking about Greece, Italy, Spain, or Ireland. Oh, and i suppose a government report describing some UK hospitals as third world might make some patients squeamish.
If i'm going to have an appendicitis abroad, I'll keep the Czechs in mind though.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:30 am PT...
Hey Brook - I have two American friends who came here for extensive dental work, as the cost of their air fare plus the (uninsured) cost of their dental work was so much less than it would be in the U$ that they were able to sandwich the treatments into a lovely vacation. The land of the greedy and the home of the militarists - no thanks!
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:46 am PT...
is it the progressive lefts fault they r unhappy with current admin when the current admin has renigged on his campaign promises ovr and ovr>?
here we have obama legitimising bush (haiti fundraising) instead of frog marching him as he deserves
on health care instead of the public option we were promised we get nothing,notta,a bill that will actually make things worse
but did the folks of mass actually vote for a naked hottie ovr a respectable public servant....with lhs in charge of our vote counting,we may nevr know
without precinct by precinct numbers we cant find the tag,yet, but bevs preliminary finding that the dem won the hand counts is illuminating
the one thing i find encouraging is they had to hand out pre voted ballots because that means they knew they couldnt switch enough votes electronically (who knows we may crack this egg yet)
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:47 am PT...
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:47 am PT...
BlueHawk post #3 and Walrus post #8 both list many of the reasons people are disgusted with the Dems and Obama. By 'people', I'm not referring to Repugnants, who hate anything not stamped with an 'R'. I'm referring to independents and progressives.
I didn't even vote for Obama, but I had much higher hopes than he has demonstrated. He has basically taken the pro-corporate america stance on EVERY issue, except executive pay.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:48 am PT...
The healthcare bill is a complete windfall for the insurance companies, the drug companies and the large medical companies. It doesn't help the common citizen AT ALL. People are taking the Howard Dean position for the most part .... this bill is so bad, it hopefull will fail. It may have started out as a chocolate bar with peanuts, but through political compromises it is now a dirt bar filled with rocks and dipped in shit.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:54 am PT...
Brook @ comment # 38 re:health care in Italy.
I don't know what your experiences in Italy have been. A friend of mine was living in Rome for 6 months in 2007 when he had a tachycardia attack that completely freaked him out. He got diagnosed, treated, cured, and an overnight hospital stay for no cost. Please remind me, which part of the USA provides anything APPROACHING that level of free emergency medical care?
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 10:57 am PT...
I read the article and then the comments and was fascinated with the variety of excuses you guys have come up with to explain Marth Coakley's embarrasing loss in yesterdays election. Here's a list of all the reasons you guys cited;
the Left of the progressive movement
Independent Massachusetts voter
the ideological purist Left
the extreme right
the Obama-hating Left
the Blue Dawg nutbags
Green Party and Independents
the corporate-owned MSM's
left wing base
Wall Street and Banks
Goldman Sachs lobbists
the democratic ESTABLISHMENT
the religious fanatics
The Obama administration
traitor's Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke
a strangely confused President
a painfully obsequious Democratic Party
the dickhead democrats
these "progressive democrats"
a bunch of lame ass Democrats
the rears of the neocon religious right
the dangerous, corporate media driven, post-election, blame-game
baucus,nelson twins,LIEberman,and DLC/blue dogs
military industrial complex
Obama's insistence on health care reform
My goodness there's a lot of blame! I submit to you for your consideration that Martha didn't lose - Scott Brown won.
While whomever is in power trying to appease all those special interest groups, what the PEOPLE wanted was someone wanting to serve THEIR special interests.
Have a wonderful afternoon ripping each other apart.
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 11:14 am PT...
12 months is a full quarter of his term. It's not that he has not moved fast enough, he has actually moved in the wrong direction. Increasing our troop levels in afghanistan, CIA drone attacks, continuation of basically all Bush era civil liberty abuses, sickening blind support for Israel, ACTIVELY covering up Bush crimes,.......the list goes on. And I'll pass on this healthcare "reform" which proposes to penalize those who choose not to buy insurance. Thanks, but no thanks.
You need to stop thinking left vs. right and start thinking corporate vs. human beings.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 11:24 am PT...
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 11:43 am PT...
This is satire, right? Please tell me this is satirical.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 12:00 pm PT...
If you believe that at the very least, Republicans MUST NOT regain government control-- even at the cost of allowing Democrats to run it poorly toward the center-- and that with Democrats in control we are in a far better position to influence the electorate until we TURN THIS SHIP AROUND, then in fact, Frank has a legitimate if not entirely illuminated point: progressive dissatisfaction aimed at Obama is misguided and undermines our interests.
Obama is not the enemy. Regressive Republican policy, divisive Republican strategy and corrosive Republican social engineering are at the heart of the poison in the system. Yes, placed and nurtured by the money elite. Yes, aided and abetted by the lobbying industry that goes unregulated. Yes, furthered by Democrats as well as Republicans, but still, any day of the week in this country more damage is done when Democratic party voices are relegated to minority positions and you know it.
So, at least in suggesting that the acrimony that drove the electorate in Massachusetts (presuming the count of course is valid) to change the party seat, is the result of many things and at least one of them is the misdirected anger of the left toward a man who could not and SHOULD not be "the change" in this country, ESPECIALLY if you really want an end to a "Decider" aka an Imperial Presidency.
That job is ours.
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 12:05 pm PT...
George W. Obama. 44 is 43 on steroids. Brandon nailed it. And everyone should be counseled to check out zapkitty's link at #41.
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 12:12 pm PT...
"This is satire, right? Please tell me this is satirical."
Nope, with three articles along these themes it's become obvious that he means it.
Frank has a lot to say that's worth hearing on the subject of the interaction of right-wing religion in the U.S. and politics... but the actual nature of Obama and Obama's actions plays out in a huge blind spot for Frank.
I was raised as a Nazarene Baptist and was also a member of Jerry Falwell's congregation for a time so I think I understand what's happening with Frank... but the only cure I know of is time and (often bitter) experience.
And as I got out of that crap when I was 12 I guess we'll have to put up with these articles for about 40 more years...
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 12:24 pm PT...
David, there are community/charity hospitals and clinics all over the US that provide services at no cost to the patient. They are not, however, FREE --- somebody has to pay the staff.
Italy's free health care system will make them the next EU country to be downgraded due to soaring deficits.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 12:24 pm PT...
Cyntia Black said...
"If you believe that at the very least, Republicans MUST NOT regain government control"
It seems that you've not been paying attention... when did the powers-that-be ever lose control of the government?
Obama dances to the corporate tune as well as W ever did... and seems to be on track to do as much or even more damage to Americans than King George.
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 12:29 pm PT...
It’s not satire. Frank doesn’t do satire.
Frank’s theory is the least likely scenario. The most likely blame for an AFU situation is that it's the fault those who were supposed to be in charge, NOT some disgruntled faction that those in charge are supposed to allow for. I'd say this was over complacency by the Democratic Party organization, who couldn’t imagine liberal MA going for Brown, leading to the fielding of a zero charisma "Gray Davis" type of candidate. MA voters were used to voting for a celebrity for years and Coakley didn't turn anyone on. The Dems could have won the election easily by just drafting any reasonably qualified Kennedy offspring to run, but they didn’t. And so it went.
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 1:26 pm PT...
Here is a poll that might interest you Frankie
LESSON FROM MASSACHUSETTS?
EVEN SCOTT BROWN VOTERS WANT THE PUBLIC OPTION, WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER
"In an election between Scott Brown and the public option, the public option would have won."
– Charles Chamberlain, political director of Democracy for America
HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT "DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH"
* by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
* by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home
(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)
VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION
* 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
* 86% of Obama voters who stayed home
OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER
* 57% of Brown voters say Obama "not delivering enough" on change he promised
* 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home
PLUS: Obama voters overwhelming want bold economic populism from Democrats in 2010.
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 1:33 pm PT...
Not voting is just that, not voting. It is allowing *others* to decide for you. Good luck with that. I'm going to fucking vote when I can.
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 1:35 pm PT...
(which I couldn't in this case...)
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 1:41 pm PT...
What do you intend to accomplish with writing like this? What best possible outcome do you have in mind?
COMMENT #59 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 1:58 pm PT...
From Glenn Greenwald, today:
"...I want to address two equally moronic themes emerging over the last couple of days which seek to blame the omnipotent, dominant, super-human "Left" for the Democrats' woes --- one coming from right-wing Democrats and the other from hard-core Obama loyalists (those two categories are not mutually exclusive but, rather, often overlap).
"...The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials --- and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems --- has been captive "to the Left" is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it."
COMMENT #60 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 2:01 pm PT...
...and great question, Symbiont (#58). I'd like to know that, as well.
COMMENT #61 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 2:02 pm PT...
Frank, would the Obama administration's participation in the coverup of Murdergate begin to persuade you that maybe us lefty haters have some completely righteous reasons to turn against Obama?
If you want to hear it in more detail, you can spend forty minutes listening here.
COMMENT #62 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 2:16 pm PT...
Frank, it's time to seek help. You've transferred your irrational love for God (see the title of your book, "Crazy for God") to Obama. I have experienced that type of behavior by my older brother and by my girl friend's son. Both suffered mental illness. Each new thing they tried (Christianity, drugs, I Ching, transcendental meditation, etc) was their "savior".
Further, don't you see unhealthy parallels in your statement above "The Left of the progressive movement couldn’t wait patiently for change" and the title of one of your other book, "Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism)"? Frank, I feel your pain.
Note to Brad: Frank's writing causes me pain, too. A headache.
COMMENT #63 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 2:28 pm PT...
Brad, has your blog been infiltrated? It seems that Mr. Schaeffer is seeking to distract us from having a serious discussion about Election Fraud having played a role in yesterday's results. Why is that?
COMMENT #64 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 2:52 pm PT...
Obama and the Dems got the spanking they deserved...good on that.
As I said earlier...that's the reality of electoral politics, when your policies and decisions don't jibe with the electorate, then you get your ass handed to you at the polls.
The Dems and Obama can recover...if they're listening. If not then good riddance...
COMMENT #65 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 2:54 pm PT...
Sorry Frank, your jabs miss the target.
MA wasn't lost because those on the left demanded gay rights, or didn't root or pray enough for Obama.
MA was 'lost' because Coakley ran a poor campaign.
As far as those on the left being impatient with Obama, save it. People who voted for change are disappointed that change isn't really happening after all. I refer you to Obama's preference to look forward, rather than backward, instead of investigating and prosecuting Bush Admin. malfeasance; no real effort to regulate Wall Street; no real movement on gay rights; failure to properly investigate and prosecute the "Guantanamo Suicides"; failure to repudiate Bush's executive power grab instead choosing to keep the expanded powers; ad infinitum.
Those on the left have the right as citizens to criticize the President for every failure to produce the change he campaigned on. Sorry, Frank, but in case you don't already know, most of us are not interested in a politics of blind faith.
COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 2:57 pm PT...
And Coakley conceding at record breaking speed...
Well that's as fishy as a trout farm...
COMMENT #67 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 3:12 pm PT...
COMMENT #68 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 3:29 pm PT...
From Tom Dispatch, another very worthy leftist point of view:
A Very American Coup
By William J. Astore
1. Somehow, we need to begin to reverse the ongoing militarization of this country, especially our ever-rising “defense” budgets. The most recent of these, we’ve just learned, is a staggering $708 billion for fiscal year 2011 --- and that doesn’t even include the $33 billion President Obama has requested for his latest surge in Afghanistan. We also need to get rid of the idea that anyone who suggests even minor cuts in defense spending is either hopelessly naïve or a terrorist sympathizer. It’s time as well to call a halt to the privatization of military activity and so halt the rise of security contractors like Xe (formerly Blackwater), thereby weakening the corporate profit motive that supports and underpins the American version of perpetual war. It’s time to begin feeling chastened, not proud, that we’re by far the number one country in the world in arms manufacturing and the global arms trade.
2. Let’s downsize our global mission rather than endlessly expanding our military footprint. It’s time to have a military capable of defending this country, not fighting endless wars in distant lands while garrisoning the globe.
3. Let’s stop paying attention to major TV and cable networks that rely on retired senior military officers, most of whom have ties both to the Pentagon and military contractors, for “unbiased” commentary on our wars. If we insist on fighting our perpetual “frontier” wars, let’s start insisting as well that they be covered in all their bitter reality: the death, the mayhem, the waste, the prisons, and the torture. Why is our war coverage invariably sanitized to “PG” or even “G,” when we can go to the movies anytime and see “R” rated, pornographically violent films? And by the way, it’s time to be more critical of the government’s and the media’s use of language and propaganda. Mindlessly parroting the Patriot Act doesn’t make you patriotic.
4. It’s time to elect a president who doesn’t surround himself with senior “civilian” advisors and ambassadors who are actually retired military generals and admirals, one who won’t accept a Nobel Peace Prize by defending war in theory and escalating it in practice.
5. Let’s toughen up. Let’s stop deferring to authority figures who promise to “protect” us while abridging our rights. Let’s stop bowing down before men and women in uniform, before they start thinking that it’s their right to be worshipped and act accordingly.
6. Let’s act now to relieve the sort of desperation bred by joblessness and hopelessness that could lead many --- notably male workers suffering from the “He-Cession” --- to see a militarized solution in “the homeland” as a credible last resort. It’s the economy, stupid, but with Main Street’s health, not Wall Street’s, in our focus.
7. Let’s take Sarah Palin and her followers seriously. They’re tapping into anger that’s real and spreading. Don’t let them become the voices of the angry working (and increasingly unemployed) classes.
8. Recognize that we face real enemies in our world, the most powerful of which aren’t in distant Afghanistan or Yemen but here at home. The essence of our struggle to sustain our faltering democracy should not be against “terrorists,” with their shoe and crotch bombs, but against various powerful, perfectly legal groups here whose interests lie in a Pentagon that only grows ever stronger.
9. Stop thinking the U.S. is uniquely privileged. Don’t take it on faith that God is on our side. Forget about God blessing America. If you believe in God, get out there and start trying to earn His blessing through deeds.
10. And, most important of all, remember that fear is the mind-killer that makes militarism possible. Ramping up “terror” is an amazingly effective way of shredding our Constitution. Putting our “safety” above all else is asking for trouble. The only way we’ll be completely safe from the big bad terrorists, after all, is when we’re all living in a maximum security state. Think of walking down the street while always being subject to a “full-body scan.”
That’s my top 10 things we need to do. It’s a daunting list and I’m sure you have a few ideas of your own. But have faith. Ultimately, it all boils down to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s words to a nation suffering through the Great Depression: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
I think some of us around here should give particular consideration to Astore's seventh point in this piece, and recommend people clicking through to read the whole piece.
COMMENT #69 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 3:32 pm PT...
Scott @ 45 said:
My goodness there's a lot of blame! I submit to you for your consideration that Martha didn't lose - Scott Brown won.
While whomever is in power trying to appease all those special interest groups, what the PEOPLE wanted was someone wanting to serve THEIR special interests.
And yet, a new poll of MA "protest voters" suggests the opposite of what you hope for. Well, they do want someone to serve THEIR special interests, but it doesn't seem to be the special interests that you and the corporatists share.
The data seem to suggest that both you (and Frank Schaeffer) are likely wrong in your no-actual-evidence-to-back-them up assessments.
COMMENT #70 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 3:35 pm PT...
Lefties to blame? Nope. Mark down the following people who cost Martha Coakley the election. Harry Reid. Ben Nelson. Mary Landrieu. Joe Lieberman. Bernie Sanders. What did these people all do? They demanded, and got, a special deal for their state in trade for their vote on the health care bill, which was largely Max Baucus' bill, add him to the list, to get to 60 votes. That's called bribery and corruption, and that actually put a Senate seat that should never have been in play, in play. Only one Leftist, Bernie, among them. People saw THAT. And Martha failed to repudiate it, but indicated that she'd go along with it. That killed her. The tragedy is, it's such a special interest favoring bill, it almost looked like Republicans wrote it instead of Democrats. If Obama fails to repudiate the Reid health care bill, he's cooked. It's not the fault of the Left.
COMMENT #71 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 3:51 pm PT...
Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local." Before Martha Coakley was Attorney General, she was the Middlesex County District Attorney, working out of the (former) Middlesex County Superior Courthouse a couple of blocks from my house. We had big-time criminal case after big-time criminal case for years, clogging our streets with television trucks.
One of the cases that created long-term ill will towards Ms. Coakley was the Fells Acres Day School child abuse case, which was actually tried under the auspices of her predecessor, Scott Harshbarger, who also went on to become AG, paving the way for Ms. Coakley to become DA (a pattern that has been repeated over and over). This case was part of the raft of day care center sex abuse cases that plagued the country in the 1980s. Children and parents were pushed by police and prosecutors into making all sorts of fantastical claims of horrific abuse that defied the laws of physics and common sense. In fact, I think the accusers were victimized by the system almost as much as those who were falsely accused and convicted; the children were left with false memories of hideous things' having been done to them, and the parents had the guilt of feeling that they put their children in the care of their abusers and they never noticed it. In the Fells Acres case, Violet Amirault, her daughter Cheryl Amirault LaFave and her son Gerald Amirault were convicted of abusing children and given lengthy prison sentences, with Gerald's being the harshest because he was a man.
As other cases were being overturned around the country and the innocent were being released, Massachusetts prosecutors stuck by the conviction of the Amiraults. Enter Martha Coakley. The women had been released, and Violet had died, but Gerald Amirault still languished in prison. The State Board of Pardons and Paroles voted unanimously to let him out, so, to prevent justice from breaking out, Martha Coakley swung into action, assembling former parents and children to lobby the (Republican) Governor Jane Swift, who complied. Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal did some of the best reporting I found about this case, which I remember well from when it originally happened. It's well worth reading her stories (Google wsj.com "fells acres", so I don't clutter this comment with links), but you can get a good overview from her editorial that ran a few days ago, which you can read at http://tinyurl.com/yaqq6a7.
The zeal Martha Coakley brought to persecuting the Amiraults has been visited upon many people, some deserved, some not. I've disliked her intensely for years, along with Scott Harshbarger, despite their public images as crusaders for truth, justice and the American way, and it all traces back to the Amiraults. Despite all that, I held my nose, willed my gorge not to rise, and voted for Coakley yesterday (hoping that we'd get something better in two years) because I also remember how Scott Brown got to be a state senator with a truly despicable gay-baiting campaign against Angus McQuilken during the marriage equality wars. I have also dealt with him a few times as a lawyer and have not found him to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
A caller to the Ed Schultz show last week tried to bring up the Amiraults, and Ed wouldn't hear of it. Never underestimate how personal a race can be. Martha Coakley ran a rotten campaign, but even before that she made a lot of people question her character and decency. Of course, if that had been my only criterion, I imagine the libertarian would have gotten my vote; he was my second choice, after all, considering he's right on some things, unlike Scott Brown, who's both wrong and despicable, and Martha Coakley, who's mostly right on the issues even if she is personally despicable. How many people decided to stay home with options like that?
And, on the election integrity front, I wasn't the only person who noticed that the percentages of the vote for each candidate didn't change appreciably as the votes started coming in. Brown hovered around 52 percent for every report I saw, and Coakley was 46-47 percent, with not-one-of-those-Kennedys 1 percent.
COMMENT #72 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 4:43 pm PT...
It just might be that your old party stole another one. They have been known to do that, you know.
According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown’s 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. But this is nothing new. As a point of reference, however, in the Maine gay marriage issue recently there was no significant overall difference between machine count and hand count locations.
Obama won the handcounts in the New Hampshire primary by exactly the same margin that Clinton won the machine counts. It was just like the caucuses, where humans were counted- Obama won all of them easily.
In 2004, there was a 2% exit poll discrepancy in handcounted paper ballot precincts, 7% in electronic voting machines (DREs and optical scanners), 6% in punched card and 12% in mechanical lever precincts (NY and CT voted 100% using levers).
BUT THERE WAS NO EXIT POLL IN THE MA SENATE RACE. I WONDER WHY.
The pattern is consistent: Democrats win elections when humans count the votes in full view. They lose when machines count and there is no paper to prove if they actually won or lost.
They could re-count the optical scanner ballots in MA if they wanted to. But the Dems never want to -except for Al Franken. And you know what happened in MN.
COMMENT #73 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:15 pm PT...
... Floridiot said on 1/20/2010 @ 1:26 pm COMMENT #55: Poll results
The fallacy is that there is more than one party to choose from (Jesus- I'm starting to sound like those shrill, 3rd party folks!) and all voters can do is punish the party in power that is disappointing them. The Democratic platform called for a bunch of things that aren't being delivered including virtually universal health care w/ a public option. And we got/get what exactly for our audacity of hope? ' '**** them, I'm staying home' is actually the most predictable, obvious and human response to the first year of a Democratic (super) majority that has behaved the way this one has.
It has less to do with 'hating' (Frank, I love you but you're wrong on this one IMO) than with seeing no valid reason to go out in the cold to vote for more of the same old, same old. That doesn't even take into account the folks that realize what a piece of fail the current health care bill is and that actively want it dead. Better for dem's to work toward 2012 and getting some real liberals (or people that take the 'general welfare' into account) elected, or at the very least people that aren't obviously corporate ho's.
COMMENT #74 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 6:46 pm PT...
Frank, I hope you have the time and inclination to respond to some of the very well presented comments here, or on Brad's rebuttal. You pretty much threw out a flame-bomb, insulted a lot of people in my corner, and then beat a hasty retreat. For the record, there are a bunch of people who have stated some kind of respect for you and your previous posts on God-nuts (God T-Baggers, as it were) - I'm not one of them. I think you have precision but no accuracy, that is, you miss the mark consistently. But I do want to hear what you have to say in response.
COMMENT #75 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 7:25 pm PT...
Brook @ comment 52
1. Tell the 44,000 who die in the U.S. every year about all the free health services available here.
2. Your changing your argument from implying(with no evidence)that Italy's health care system sucks to it's the next one that will go broke. I was refuting the sucking implication. I don't know enough to comment on your next allegation.
COMMENT #76 [Permalink]
said on 1/20/2010 @ 9:02 pm PT...
The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials --- and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems --- has been captive "to the Left" is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it. - Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald: In what universe must someone be living to believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by "the Left," let alone "the furthest left elements" of the Party? As Ezra Klein says, the Left "ha[s] gotten exactly nothing they wanted in recent months." The Left wanted a single-payer system, then settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion --- only to get none of it, instead being handed a bill that forces every American to buy health insurance from the private insurance industry. Nor was it "the Left" --- but rather corporatist Democrats like Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis --- who cheered for the hated Wall Street bailout; blocked drug re-importation; are stopping genuine reform of the financial industry; prevented a larger stimulus package to lower unemployment; refuse to allow programs to help Americans with foreclosures; supported escalation in Afghanistan (twice); and favor the same Bush/Cheney terrorism policies of indefinite detention, military commissions, and state secrets.
COMMENT #77 [Permalink]
Well said Frank
said on 1/21/2010 @ 1:48 am PT...
[ed note: Comment deleted. Banned commenter, using another name. --99]
COMMENT #78 [Permalink]
said on 1/21/2010 @ 3:46 am PT...
COMMENT #79 [Permalink]
said on 1/21/2010 @ 8:58 am PT...
There were many problems with this election but to me one of the biggest is that we have only two parties. Since the Dems claim that they have such a big tent, they have to accommodate seemingly contradictory stances on the same issues. Either the moderates are neglected and maybe lose their vote, or the far side of a party (the base) is neglected to try to accommodate the moderates. The Dems have been playing the Clinton moderate game since 1992 (if not longer), and the more liberal and more progressive side of the party is getting upset (the tea partiers are getting similarly upset with the Republicans). Upsetting the base alienates and demobilizes the people who provide the energy and idealism of the party. As a result the turn out for an election by the base of a party is lowered. This means that the independents and moderates have an even larger role in deciding the winner of the election. This election was decided by those non-affiliated folks who took the lesser of two evils (a good-looking guy with a truck who knows about sports over a wonky woman who has little ability in schmoozing).
Both parties are being challenged from their extremes. The extremes are sick of being taken for granted. The question is will we maintain a two party system that is more set on re-election than on solving the issues of the country or will we try to fix the problem.
Also, since the supreme court has ruled and money will flow even more freely than in the past, we need to have publicly financed elections.
COMMENT #80 [Permalink]
said on 1/21/2010 @ 6:59 pm PT...
Note that Martha Coakley won in the hand-counted locations. It is likely that the only role the voters played is theatrical, providing fodder for carefully writing about the possible meanings of the election, and that people behind LHS Associates, who manage the easily hackable computer scanners and can count the votes their way, determined the election.
COMMENT #81 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2010 @ 9:48 am PT...
If we Lefties look at things objectively, Barach Obama represents an improvement of orders of magnitude over his predecessor, who was an unabashed champion of the monied elite. Why then are we so dismayed over the inarguably rational, measured performance of the able man heading the present administration?
The reason is that we are in denial about the truth of the situation we're in. We have romanticized representative democracy, insisting that we as individuals can still exert control over our own destiny. We refuse to accept the new paradigm: democracy has been supplanted by corporate control of all aspects of life worldwide, and this change is irreversible.
Corporations not only dominate politics and the economy but dictate culture through ownership of media. This extends throughout the planet via globalization. This is the era of High Tech Feudalism. The current president had no role in bringing this about, nor is there anything he or anyone else can do to change direction significantly. Only a violent global uprising could do that, and that is beyond contemplation given the vast power of international corporations to control and punish.
So, when we wind up with "reform" that fetes industries responsible for the healthcare miasma, we must accept that is that best possible outcome under these circumstances. Likewise, garrisoning the planet is unavoidable given the vested interest of private armies, defense contractors, and the paramount needs of energy corporations. Further, now that corporatist judges in the Supreme Court have green-lighted absolute ownership of US elections by international corporations, we must realize that the Obama Administration will in future be looked upon as the dying breath of democratic rule. Corporations will hitherto embody the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government.
COMMENT #82 [Permalink]
said on 1/23/2010 @ 4:45 pm PT...
Mr. turn off the faux spews and get a reality check...this is all a result of the g.o.p. antics these past eight years.
COMMENT #83 [Permalink]
said on 1/26/2010 @ 10:46 pm PT...
Frank is completely right. Thank God someone besides myself thinks this.
The Naderite Left are self-absorbed and self-righteous, who want change "NOW" and if it doesn't happen, they brim with anger that they bothered to vote.
At root they are people who seek out failure - so they can avoid the responsibilities and the hardship of governance, and can sit back and throw stones at their leaders.
Bush - or Palin, Cheney etc. - will, at the end of the day be preferable to them, since these are leaders they can more comfortably really hate - with Obama, they always feel a little conflicted about hating him, since they somewhere recognize he isn't all bad. But that "confusion" is too much, and they yearn for the "really bad" guys - Berlusconi, Bush, Palin, whoever.
Nader lost the election for the Democrats in New Hampshire, forget about Florida. And his friends are doing it again, right now.
A friend asked the other day: Is America finished? With an insane, angry, demented Right, and a self-involved, morally arrogant, narcissistic and complaining Left, ok, I give up, you guys win! Yes, it's finished.
COMMENT #84 [Permalink]
said on 2/3/2010 @ 9:19 am PT...
Sorry, Frank, Obama wasn't running in MA. Coakly was. She was a shitty candidate, who ran a shitty campaign, and she lost.
And, if anything, she lost because there wasn't enough clear difference between her and her opponent, and she didn't run hard enough.