Showing posts with label scott brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scott brown. Show all posts
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Elizabeth Warren Sworn in as Massachusetts First Female Senator
Today was a great day to be a liberal from Massachusetts! Elizabeth Warren reclaimed the Liberal Lion's seat from placeholder Scott Brown on November 6 with an eight point cushion and we couldn't be happier. At the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Warren accurately stated, "Wall Street C.E.O.’s — the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs — still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors and acting like we should thank them." The new Senator from Massachusetts will get a seat on the Senate Banking Committee, much to the chagrin of Wall Street. It must also be noted that that man she handily defeated was Wall Street's favorite son in his two year stint as Ted Kennedy's replacement. Don't get me wrong, I think Brown is going to be the equivalent of having gum on your shoe, never going away. There's not a doubt in my mind that he will run for future Secretary of State, Sen. John Kerry's Senate seat and again, it will be a two year gig. Here's the difference, this time national Democrats are paying attention. So far, only Rep. Ed Markey has thrown his name into the ring, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) says they are ready to strongly defend this seat...a lesson learned from the inept campaign AG Martha Coakley ran against Brown in 2009. And Brown has already started with the negative shots at Markey, so I'll take that as a sign he's running again. On election night, once Warren had been declared the winner, my first thought was, "I wonder if the Republicans who were so opposed to her being appointed to lead the agency she started, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were regretting their short-sighted decision." At the end of the day, we have elected a warrior for the middle class and I couldn't be prouder of our state sending an unabashed liberal to Washington to fight the good fight for the people.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Elizabeth Warren Takes on the GOP War on Women
Today, Elizabeth Warren penned an op-ed for the Boston Globe.
Denying women coverage under any guise is a big step backward
Maybe you saw the pictures. Five middle-age men seated at a congressional hearing table to discuss freedom of religion and contraception. And not a single woman was on the panel. Unbelievable. Do you think Congress would ever have a hearing on prostate cancer and only have women speak? Of course not.
Washington is so out of touch with what’s happening to families across this country that the Senate is about to vote on an amendment that would allow any insurance company or any employer to claim a vague “moral conviction’’ as an excuse to deny you health care coverage. Here’s the really astonishing news: Senator Scott Brown is not only voting for this amendment, he is fighting to get it passed.
What does this mean? If you are married and your employer doesn’t believe married couples should use birth control, then you could lose coverage for contraception. If you’re a pregnant woman who is single, and your employer doesn’t like it, you could be denied maternity care. This bill is about how to cut coverage for basic health care services for women.
Let’s be clear what this proposed law is not about: This is not about Catholic institutions or the rights of Catholics to follow their faith. President Obama has already made sure religious institutions will not be forced to cover contraception - at the same time that he has made sure women can get the health care they need directly from their health care insurers. Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of Catholic Health Association, said that Obama’s approach “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.’’
I support Obama’s solution because I believe we must respect people of all religious faiths, while still ensuring that women have access to contraceptives. Brown has rejected this compromise. Instead, he has cosponsored a bill that will let any employer or any insurance company cut off contraceptive care, maternity care, or whatever they want, and leave women without coverage at all for this basic medical care.
It is shocking that in 2012, Brown and his Republican colleagues would try to pass a law to threaten women’s access to birth control and other health care. Women all across this Commonwealth should have the right to use birth control if they want to. Giving corporate CEOs and insurance companies the power to dictate what health care women can and cannot get is just wrong. Those decisions should be up to women and their doctors.
Our goal should be to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, high-quality health care. At a time when families are struggling with the costs of health care, we should be trying to strengthen our health care system - not finding ways to create loopholes that threaten the rights of women to obtain the health care they need.
Massachusetts has been a leader in every aspect of health care: increasing access, reducing costs, and engaging in the innovations and research that make higher quality care better. We need to keep moving forward - not take a big step backward.
Denying women coverage under any guise is a big step backward
Maybe you saw the pictures. Five middle-age men seated at a congressional hearing table to discuss freedom of religion and contraception. And not a single woman was on the panel. Unbelievable. Do you think Congress would ever have a hearing on prostate cancer and only have women speak? Of course not.
Washington is so out of touch with what’s happening to families across this country that the Senate is about to vote on an amendment that would allow any insurance company or any employer to claim a vague “moral conviction’’ as an excuse to deny you health care coverage. Here’s the really astonishing news: Senator Scott Brown is not only voting for this amendment, he is fighting to get it passed.
What does this mean? If you are married and your employer doesn’t believe married couples should use birth control, then you could lose coverage for contraception. If you’re a pregnant woman who is single, and your employer doesn’t like it, you could be denied maternity care. This bill is about how to cut coverage for basic health care services for women.
Let’s be clear what this proposed law is not about: This is not about Catholic institutions or the rights of Catholics to follow their faith. President Obama has already made sure religious institutions will not be forced to cover contraception - at the same time that he has made sure women can get the health care they need directly from their health care insurers. Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of Catholic Health Association, said that Obama’s approach “protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions.’’
I support Obama’s solution because I believe we must respect people of all religious faiths, while still ensuring that women have access to contraceptives. Brown has rejected this compromise. Instead, he has cosponsored a bill that will let any employer or any insurance company cut off contraceptive care, maternity care, or whatever they want, and leave women without coverage at all for this basic medical care.
It is shocking that in 2012, Brown and his Republican colleagues would try to pass a law to threaten women’s access to birth control and other health care. Women all across this Commonwealth should have the right to use birth control if they want to. Giving corporate CEOs and insurance companies the power to dictate what health care women can and cannot get is just wrong. Those decisions should be up to women and their doctors.
Our goal should be to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, high-quality health care. At a time when families are struggling with the costs of health care, we should be trying to strengthen our health care system - not finding ways to create loopholes that threaten the rights of women to obtain the health care they need.
Massachusetts has been a leader in every aspect of health care: increasing access, reducing costs, and engaging in the innovations and research that make higher quality care better. We need to keep moving forward - not take a big step backward.
Friday, June 11, 2010
How did he get through law school?
Massachusetts, what the hell happened electing a graduate of the Sarah Palin Civics School? Our newest Senator thinks (and I use the term loosely) that the EPA is "a non-governmental agency"? Explaining his vote to bar the EPA from regulating carbon emissions, Scott Palin...I mean Scott Brown said:
"To give a non-governmental agency the ability to regulate the way that they have the potential to, they can regulate churches and restaurants and drop it all the way down from the big emitters to the very smallest emitters and it’s not appropriate. And, you know, we in Congress should continue to work on this issue and have the authority to do just that. And I would encourage, certainly, the majority party to start to work on a lot of these energy issues right away."
Churches? Restaurants? OMG, we are so f***ed if this is the best our country has to offer for leaders. And this is Massachusetts, not South Carolina!
"To give a non-governmental agency the ability to regulate the way that they have the potential to, they can regulate churches and restaurants and drop it all the way down from the big emitters to the very smallest emitters and it’s not appropriate. And, you know, we in Congress should continue to work on this issue and have the authority to do just that. And I would encourage, certainly, the majority party to start to work on a lot of these energy issues right away."
Churches? Restaurants? OMG, we are so f***ed if this is the best our country has to offer for leaders. And this is Massachusetts, not South Carolina!
Thursday, May 20, 2010
So You Think You Can Dance? Rand Paul Does It Better!
Rand Paul won a decisive victory Tuesday night in Kentucky for the right to run in November as the next Republican senator from that state. Unfortunately for him, he blew a tire on his victory lap. He went on NPR radio to discuss how he's "troubled" by certain parts of the Civil Rights Act...no worries, just the one where it says you can not discriminate! Then on the very same evening goes on The Rachel Maddow Show and seemed surprised that she wanted clarification of his stated position. It was also enlightening to find out that he's against The Americans With Disabilities Act! As I was watching TRMS, I thought an episode of "So You Think You Can Dance" broke into the coverage as he spent 20 minutes dancing around Rachel's basic question which was essentially, "What exactly did you mean?" His positions may play very well in Kentucky, but not nationally.
How do you equate having to serve a black person with having to serve someone carrying a loaded firearm. Um, call me crazy, but it seems to me that you can choose to carry a weapon, you can't change the color of your skin. Congratulations teabaggers, you've found a male Sarah Palin...maybe a bit more polished, but just as clueless. Originally I had pinned that label on Scott Brown, but this guy makes him look like Abraham Lincoln.
One more thing: He also stated that segregation in Boston ended in 1840? Really? Weren't there riots in the mid 70's? Busing issues? One thing I noticed even as a child was that the Red Sox and Celtics were always the whitest team on the field and on the court. This famous Boston Herald photo looks pretty 1970's to me!
How do you equate having to serve a black person with having to serve someone carrying a loaded firearm. Um, call me crazy, but it seems to me that you can choose to carry a weapon, you can't change the color of your skin. Congratulations teabaggers, you've found a male Sarah Palin...maybe a bit more polished, but just as clueless. Originally I had pinned that label on Scott Brown, but this guy makes him look like Abraham Lincoln.
One more thing: He also stated that segregation in Boston ended in 1840? Really? Weren't there riots in the mid 70's? Busing issues? One thing I noticed even as a child was that the Red Sox and Celtics were always the whitest team on the field and on the court. This famous Boston Herald photo looks pretty 1970's to me!Sunday, April 18, 2010
The View From The Deck - Week Ending 4/18/10
Goldman Sachs was busted this week by the SEC for fraud. So you'd think financial reform legislation would fly through the senate in a quick nearly unanimous matter, right? With the current environment of outrage from the voters against big banks and bailouts, this moment would be the push for regulation that we've all been clamouring for! If you thought that, you'd be wrong. All 41 Republican senators have signed a letter and sent it to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) opposing the legislation. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is spreading the false claim (prepared by Frank Luntz: it's not what you say, it's what people here) that this bill entitles Wall St. to never ending bailouts. I think it's great news for Democrats, seriously. If Republicans are going to "bank" on fooling the voters in November with false claims about what is in this bill, any momentum they may have gathered over the misinformation spread during the HCR battle is going to be lost because the Democrats seemed to have learned a lesson and are fighting back. This bill in fact does the oppostite, it requires liquidation of the failed institution...something many wanted from the start. By taking the stance they are with opposing regulation, they've sided with the big banks. Good luck with winning over the true independents with that position.
Here's another good one. New Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was asked by a Boston Globe reporter why he's opposed to the bill, and doesn't really seem to know why as he responded with; "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed? I mean, you know, tell me. And then I'll go get a team and go fix it." Holy chit! He asked the reporter what to do! Congratulations Massachusetts, we have the male version of Sarah Palin representing us in the senate. Ted Kennedy must be rolling in his grave. Read more here.
Earlier this week President Obama discussed why the U.S. must do it's best to resolve conflicts before they become too serious, but Sarah Palin doesn't think he made sense when he said, "It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them." Snowbilly grifter said, "I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C., understand we like to be a dominant superpower." Yes, let's listen to the woman that didn't know North Korea and South Korea were two seperate countries thinking the relationship was akin to North Dakota and South Dakota. OK, she enjoys the U.S. being pulled into conflict and having our tax dollars spent overseas, but doesn't want all Americans to have access to affordable health care. Gotta love those compassionate conservatives. I guess she also doesn't understand, or more likely doesn't care that sending our military into harms way to fight someone else's battle's is offensive to some of us. Apparently she also doesn't understand that our meddling in other countries affairs is why we're hated by many countries. Admittedly, strong national defense is important, pursuing world domination at any cost is wrong.
Didn't she quit her job as governor to spend more time with her family and get out of the limelight? Why is her voice still being heard? She's a danger with her nonsensical proclamations.
In what must be applauded as a positive step, President Obama ordered that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners. He instructed his Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments. Sounded like a great day for equal rights and then something a little weird happened...
The very same day this was announced, the White House ripped CBS for suggesting Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court is gay. Um, is our White House playing it both ways? Such a strong denial and assertion seems like a pretty homophobic reaction that they've blown waaay out of proportion at the mere suggestion of Kagan's sexuality. I might not have even heard about it had they not behaved as such asshats. Personally, I don't care what her sexual orientation is, she's a conservative and I do not want her selected as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. This is one of those "elections have consequences" thingies that are of major importance. He needs to put someone in there who will not continue the trend of moving the court to the right. It is worth the fight, sir! I've said it before, this administration has me all over the place with what they're doing. One thing I haven't wavered on, fire closet conservative Rahm Emanual.
Here's another good one. New Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown was asked by a Boston Globe reporter why he's opposed to the bill, and doesn't really seem to know why as he responded with; "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed? I mean, you know, tell me. And then I'll go get a team and go fix it." Holy chit! He asked the reporter what to do! Congratulations Massachusetts, we have the male version of Sarah Palin representing us in the senate. Ted Kennedy must be rolling in his grave. Read more here.
Earlier this week President Obama discussed why the U.S. must do it's best to resolve conflicts before they become too serious, but Sarah Palin doesn't think he made sense when he said, "It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them." Snowbilly grifter said, "I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C., understand we like to be a dominant superpower." Yes, let's listen to the woman that didn't know North Korea and South Korea were two seperate countries thinking the relationship was akin to North Dakota and South Dakota. OK, she enjoys the U.S. being pulled into conflict and having our tax dollars spent overseas, but doesn't want all Americans to have access to affordable health care. Gotta love those compassionate conservatives. I guess she also doesn't understand, or more likely doesn't care that sending our military into harms way to fight someone else's battle's is offensive to some of us. Apparently she also doesn't understand that our meddling in other countries affairs is why we're hated by many countries. Admittedly, strong national defense is important, pursuing world domination at any cost is wrong.
Didn't she quit her job as governor to spend more time with her family and get out of the limelight? Why is her voice still being heard? She's a danger with her nonsensical proclamations.
In what must be applauded as a positive step, President Obama ordered that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners. He instructed his Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments. Sounded like a great day for equal rights and then something a little weird happened...
The very same day this was announced, the White House ripped CBS for suggesting Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court is gay. Um, is our White House playing it both ways? Such a strong denial and assertion seems like a pretty homophobic reaction that they've blown waaay out of proportion at the mere suggestion of Kagan's sexuality. I might not have even heard about it had they not behaved as such asshats. Personally, I don't care what her sexual orientation is, she's a conservative and I do not want her selected as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. This is one of those "elections have consequences" thingies that are of major importance. He needs to put someone in there who will not continue the trend of moving the court to the right. It is worth the fight, sir! I've said it before, this administration has me all over the place with what they're doing. One thing I haven't wavered on, fire closet conservative Rahm Emanual.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Senator Brown, you're lying. Stop it.
Last Wednesday I posted my opinion about the Rachel Maddow v Scott Brown dust up. I updated it over the next couple days and thought it was over. However Scott Brown visited Rachel's home turf in western Massachusetts and claimed she was only discussing the issue for ratings. Tonight, once again Rachel felt she had to set the record straight. Even while my opinion of Maddow is abundantly clear, I have a huge issue of this guy trying to raise money out of state to determine our elections. We are a state with only 12% registered Republican voters. He knows he's got big problems for 2012. Trying to use Maddow as a tool here will not work, we like her. However, by asking for donations in states that think religion trumps science, that homosexuals are devils and that women belong in the kitchen and bedroom with their man making the decisions and you'll likely raise some money against the cool, calm, collected, gay liberal, Ms. Maddow. This man is nothing but a phony pretty boy and it really pisses me off that Martha Coakley was so completely inept as a candidate that she could not beat this lying fraud. That said, give him hell Rachel and do what's best for you!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Scott Brown Showing His True Color - Yellow
Seven week Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) has apparently taken an anonymous "tweet" and run amok with fear. The false rumor is that the Democrats are trying to lure Rachel Maddow into opposing him for the Massachusetts Senate in November of 2012. Way to be different and get things done Scotty; cast one vote and start running for a new term...against someone not even running who you clearly view as a legitimate threat. Maddow made it clear that she is not running against him in 2012, but he hasn't let that little fact get in his way for fundraising. Rachel used humor on Tuesday evening to dispute his endeavor, but by Wednesday she seemed aggitated by the ongoing lie that Brown won't let die!. In typical Republican cowardice, he won‘t come on her show to talk about this situation and his Senate office is refusing to even return TRMS phone calls. And they are apparently not going to retract the letter that they‘ve sent out all over the country that says saying Rachel would be bad for the country (which I obviously don't think is true) even though it is not factually true. Who wouldn't be genuinely aggitated by someone trying to make money off your name, especially from other states?! Here's the fundraising letter he sent to supporters yesterday:
Friends,
It’s only been a couple of months since I’ve been in office, and before I’ve even settled into my new job, the political machine in Massachusetts is looking for someone to run against me. And you’re not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit — liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow.
Rachel lives in western Massachusetts, and recently it was reported that the chairman of the state Democratic Party had apparently tried to reach out to her in an attempt to coax her into a race against me. You can read about it here.
The political season never ends, which is why I need your continued support. While my opponents strategize on how to defeat me in 2012, I’m going to continue to speak out against higher taxes, more spending and greater government control in our lives.
I relish being an independent voice in Washington, one that doesn’t march in lockstep with the rest of the Washington crowd. The Democratic Party bosses in Massachusetts disagree. They want a rubberstamp who will vote for their plans to expand government, increase debt and raise taxes. Someone like Rachel Maddow. I’m sure she’s a nice person — I just don’t think America can afford her liberal politics.
Rachel Maddow has a nightly platform to push her far-left agenda. What about you? I’d like to encourage ordinary American citizens concerned about the future of their country to get more involved in our government. I hope you were encouraged by my victory to become more politically active, maybe even become a candidate for office yourself. We can continue to push our movement forward by running for office, joining in rallies and petitions that challenge President Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare legislation, supporting campaigns against the tax-and-spenders or by donating time and money to office-holders and candidates who will restore the principles of our founders.
I’m grateful you are with me. Thanks again for whatever support you can provide me, and I look forward to joining in further victories with you down the line.
Sincerely,
Scott Brown
United States Senator
UPDATE: MARCH 26, 2010
MSNBC took out a full-page ad in the Boston Globe for a letter from Rachel Maddow to her fellow Massachusetts citizens in response to Scott Brown's unfounded claims while trying to raise out-of-state money for his 2012 re-election bid.
UPDATE: MARCH 27, 2010
Friends,
It’s only been a couple of months since I’ve been in office, and before I’ve even settled into my new job, the political machine in Massachusetts is looking for someone to run against me. And you’re not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit — liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow.
Rachel lives in western Massachusetts, and recently it was reported that the chairman of the state Democratic Party had apparently tried to reach out to her in an attempt to coax her into a race against me. You can read about it here.
The political season never ends, which is why I need your continued support. While my opponents strategize on how to defeat me in 2012, I’m going to continue to speak out against higher taxes, more spending and greater government control in our lives.
I relish being an independent voice in Washington, one that doesn’t march in lockstep with the rest of the Washington crowd. The Democratic Party bosses in Massachusetts disagree. They want a rubberstamp who will vote for their plans to expand government, increase debt and raise taxes. Someone like Rachel Maddow. I’m sure she’s a nice person — I just don’t think America can afford her liberal politics.
Rachel Maddow has a nightly platform to push her far-left agenda. What about you? I’d like to encourage ordinary American citizens concerned about the future of their country to get more involved in our government. I hope you were encouraged by my victory to become more politically active, maybe even become a candidate for office yourself. We can continue to push our movement forward by running for office, joining in rallies and petitions that challenge President Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare legislation, supporting campaigns against the tax-and-spenders or by donating time and money to office-holders and candidates who will restore the principles of our founders.
I’m grateful you are with me. Thanks again for whatever support you can provide me, and I look forward to joining in further victories with you down the line.
Sincerely,
Scott Brown
United States Senator
UPDATE: MARCH 26, 2010
MSNBC took out a full-page ad in the Boston Globe for a letter from Rachel Maddow to her fellow Massachusetts citizens in response to Scott Brown's unfounded claims while trying to raise out-of-state money for his 2012 re-election bid.
UPDATE: MARCH 27, 2010
It didn't take long for Scotty's little independent streak to go away, did it?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Hey, Teabaggers...What Has Brown Done For You?!
You've got to love the mentality of the Tea Bag crowd. One vote and they've turned on their shiny new messiah! One of the funniest comments was, "These folks, Scott Brown's "Fans," thought Brown was literally the naked lovechild of Reagan and George Washington." I guess most of the country doesn't understand that he did NOT run as a far right idealogue. He would have never gotten elected. In fact, he never once in any ad actually admit he was a Republican. He distanced himself from teabaggers, he ran as a moderate. I don't buy it, this is one vote, but the reaction of this one vote is hysterical. Do these people grasp the fact that he was elected due to a terrible Coakley campaign mixed with a guy running as an "independent?" If he make's a hard right turn, like they want, there is not one chance in hell that he get's re-elected in 2012! Massachusetts hasn't changed, Massachusetts didn't turn on the Kennedy legacy. Massachusetts was fed up with business as usual and Brown made a much better stance that he'd be different. Different doesn't mean, be a tea bagger!
I thought I'd share some of the various comments (former) Scott Brown supporters have written on various blogs and his facebook page:
There are so many more, but I think by now, you get the gist!
I thought I'd share some of the various comments (former) Scott Brown supporters have written on various blogs and his facebook page:
- You are a piece of garbage!
- NOOOOOOOOOOO, I DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE DISTRICT YOU REPRESENT. WHY SCOTT BROWN WHYYYYYYYYYYY?!?! WHY DID YOU DISRESPECT THE TEABAGGERS?!?!
- You sir, are a sellout. You sir, are NO FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. To quote a true Conservative, Joe Wilson, "You LIE!". Now I shall remove myself from your fan page, you do not deserve support. I regret having supported you, although you're better than Coakley, I suppose? Remains to be seen.
- Way to double cross millions.
- Some of us made it our jobs to get you elected so you can STOP THE SPENDING. I want my money back for supporting you. You are a fraud : (
- Hey Judas, how many pieces of gold did you receive??
- SOOOOOO disappointed in you Scott Brown, you don't deserve that Senate seat.....
- I wish your truck had broken down and you couldn't make it to Washington in time to vote for this bill! You were OUR "hope and change" and you let US down BIG TIME!!! Beck/Palin 2012!!!
- Hey, COL. Klink!!! you really are "FUBAR" F**cked up beyond all regognition.
- what's next scott, a beer with OBAMA & some peanuts in the back of your truck WTF...
- scott brown ther is a new term for being bamboozled, lied to, disgraced, tricked, or pranked its called being "scott browned"... I cant believe i supported u friggin neocon rino
- Thanks for NOTHING!!!! Can anyone running for office ever speak the truth? Probably not.
- WELL SCOTT LOOOKS LIKE YOU SHOWED YOUR BUTTOX LIKE WE SAY IN THE SOUTH SAME ON YOU I KNOW YOU THINK THE TEA PARTIES DIDNT HELP YOU GET ELECTED YOUR SADLY MISTAKEN I HEARD YOU SAID F---- THE TEA PARTIES HOPE THAT NOT TRUE AND ALSO HOW ABOUT SAYING NO TO THE HEATH CARE BILL LIKE YOU SAID YOU WOULD
- LOW LIFE SCUM HYPOCRITE!
There are so many more, but I think by now, you get the gist!
Monday, February 22, 2010
Brown, Boehner and Bipartisanship...oye vey
I seriously have to ask, do we ever learn? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Today, Scott Brown (R-MA) broke rank with fellow Republicans and supported a Democratic jobs bill in an important procedural vote. Brown says the bill is not perfect but he will support it. I hope people don't read too much into this vote. This is a soft toss that the Republicans will look foolish fighting. Since Brown's election was largely a protest vote, he can't walk lock step with the party of no. Expect him to act like a moderate on these types of votes. Wait until Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy expire, or ending DADT comes close to fruition, or closing Gitmo becomes reality. Don't get suckered. This boy supports Bush policies and only supports enough moderate positions to get him elected in Massachusetts.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (the orange Republican ventriloquist from OH) said the President has crippled the credibility of this week's summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected. Yeah, ok "Boner", Republicans have garnered so much credibility on this topic. Obama made his own 11 page health care proposal public on Monday morning, giving participants three days to examine them before the meeting. Obama has asked that the summit be televised. It's rumored that he will add one or two Republican-backed measures to the legislation as a show of bipartisanship. These steps satisfy previous GOP demands...which means they'll have new one's. This bipartisan outreach is really getting old, it's not going to happen! Saying no to everything is working for them. It is why Democrats are getting killed in the polls. ENOUGH ALREADY! Get something good done so the public can see that Democrats can govern. Let's see, what is the Republicans idea of HCR? Tort reform, tort reform! Sorry, I'm not buying into something that adds less than one half of one percent to the cost of health care coverage, but will limit people's ability to sue incompetent doctor's as beneficial across the board. I agree that someone shouldn't be awarded $10K for a scar on their finger, but someone who has the wrong kidney removed (happened in CA last fall) should not be limited to damages. The good news? In this case the doctor apologized for the error after surgery. I guess Republicans think that's enough. Hey, shit happens! The other thing they want is to allow private health insurance companies to sell across state lines. My first reaction to that is, "Yeah, that'll work. I'm sure they won't all be in cahoots to keep premiums high!" However, after doing a little research I found that states have regulated health insurance since the 1945 passage of the McCarran Ferguson Act, which forbids interstate sale of insurance. What Republicans are suggesting would require a federal law that replaces state regulation of insurance with federal regulation. This is an odd policy for Republicans to pursue since they generally claim to reject federal regulation in favor of state independence. They're a confusing little bunch of whiners.
Today, Scott Brown (R-MA) broke rank with fellow Republicans and supported a Democratic jobs bill in an important procedural vote. Brown says the bill is not perfect but he will support it. I hope people don't read too much into this vote. This is a soft toss that the Republicans will look foolish fighting. Since Brown's election was largely a protest vote, he can't walk lock step with the party of no. Expect him to act like a moderate on these types of votes. Wait until Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy expire, or ending DADT comes close to fruition, or closing Gitmo becomes reality. Don't get suckered. This boy supports Bush policies and only supports enough moderate positions to get him elected in Massachusetts.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (the orange Republican ventriloquist from OH) said the President has crippled the credibility of this week's summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected. Yeah, ok "Boner", Republicans have garnered so much credibility on this topic. Obama made his own 11 page health care proposal public on Monday morning, giving participants three days to examine them before the meeting. Obama has asked that the summit be televised. It's rumored that he will add one or two Republican-backed measures to the legislation as a show of bipartisanship. These steps satisfy previous GOP demands...which means they'll have new one's. This bipartisan outreach is really getting old, it's not going to happen! Saying no to everything is working for them. It is why Democrats are getting killed in the polls. ENOUGH ALREADY! Get something good done so the public can see that Democrats can govern. Let's see, what is the Republicans idea of HCR? Tort reform, tort reform! Sorry, I'm not buying into something that adds less than one half of one percent to the cost of health care coverage, but will limit people's ability to sue incompetent doctor's as beneficial across the board. I agree that someone shouldn't be awarded $10K for a scar on their finger, but someone who has the wrong kidney removed (happened in CA last fall) should not be limited to damages. The good news? In this case the doctor apologized for the error after surgery. I guess Republicans think that's enough. Hey, shit happens! The other thing they want is to allow private health insurance companies to sell across state lines. My first reaction to that is, "Yeah, that'll work. I'm sure they won't all be in cahoots to keep premiums high!" However, after doing a little research I found that states have regulated health insurance since the 1945 passage of the McCarran Ferguson Act, which forbids interstate sale of insurance. What Republicans are suggesting would require a federal law that replaces state regulation of insurance with federal regulation. This is an odd policy for Republicans to pursue since they generally claim to reject federal regulation in favor of state independence. They're a confusing little bunch of whiners.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Buttars and McDonnell Doing Their Part In Regressing America
- Utah state Sen. Chris Buttars (R) has put forth a plan to eliminate 12th grade in high school claiming the proposal could save the state about $60 million. When I first read the headline, I figured it must be a bogus one to get you to read it, but nope, this was really proposed. I guess Republicans in red states have decided that the electorate isn't quite dumb enough yet. Funny that the Church of the Latter Day Saints can come up with millions in California to fund an anti-gay referendum, but they can't come up with enough dough to make senior year possible in Utah. Of course, this isn't Buttars' only brush with stupidity. He has said of gays, "They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of." and "I meet with the gays here and there. They were in my house two weeks ago. I don’t mind gays. But I don’t want ‘em stuffing it down my throat all the time. Certainly not in my kid’s face." So many jokes to be made, so little interest in talking about this homophobic anti-education moron any longer than necessary. I just thought you should know.
- I also think it's important to note that new Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) made a little noticed change in Virginia's anti-discrimination law. Gay and lesbian state workers in Virginia are no longer specifically protected against discrimination. On Feb. 5 he signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans. It rescinds the order that former Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a "fair and inclusive" administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy - and sexual orientation. All I can say is wow. In 2010, to go out of your way to strip equal protection laws while we have a black president just floors me. Virginia has elected a women-hating, gay-hating (probable closet-racist) as Governor. Nice job Virginia, I don't feel so bad about Scott Brown right now. Thanks!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Saturday Evening Thoughts...
First, an FYI: Rachel Maddow will appear tomorrow on Meet the Press. Other guests will include, VP Joe Biden, former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN), Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) and journalist David Brooks.
- Clearly, the Senate Republicans strategy is to filibuster everything to win in November. "Republicans are gambling they can convince the American people Democrats can't get much done, and at the moment, their gamble is paying off," said former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat and the president of the New School in New York. Here's my fear; which Democrat will be the first one to utter that the American people are smarter than that...they understand that the Republicans are obstructionists? Let me say now... No they're not! The American people are not smarter than that! Work on the message NOW!
- The GOP is outraged that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pared the bipartisan jobs bill unveiled on Thursday. It appears that old Harry reached down and found some golden nuggets! Why are Republicans outraged? He removed the K Street Kickback, which extends huge tax credits to large corporations. The K Street payoff is counted in the tens of billions of dollars. Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said tax extenders don't belong in the jobs bill. "They have nothing to do with the jobs bill, nothing to do with unemployment." Give 'em hell, Harry!
- The previous paragraph leads me to this one. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sobbed on Senate floor about his chief of staff heading for K Street. His right-hand man, Kyle Simmons, is leaving his side after 14 years. Simmons is starting up a lobbying firm with another chief of staff. Was he crying that his pally might not make as much money on the backs of taxpayers? Maybe Mitchy boy thought Reid wouldn't have the "nuggets" to put a stop to the payouts! There's something about McConnell (besides his party) that bothers me. He has a very evil, deceitful little smirk every time you see him.
- Tea Party leader Dale Robertson cautioned Tea Partiers to be wary, because Sarah Palin, headliner of last week's National Tea Party Convention, represents a threat "to the heart of the Tea Party:" [] "I am sending an alarm to the Tea Party membership! Be alert to turncoats and deceivers being herded into the Tea Party by usurpers from the weakened Republican Party for the sole purpose of capturing our populist movement." Poor Sarah, not even the Tea Partiers are taking her seriously anymore. I guess when you give a "hand written" Republican stump speech at a movement that some of them actually believe is grassroots, you get blowback. Who knew any of them would figure it out?
- Newly elected Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) is going to write a book that combines memoir and inspiration. Evidently he wants to tell his personal story about his life leading up to his election as a United States senator from Massachusetts. I literally started laughing when I read this. He's been a senator for what, 9 days?! I guess he's following fellow shallow shell Palin, cashing in while the iron is hot. Rumors up here are that Joe Kennedy regrets not running for his uncle's seat...so do we. If I were Scotty, I wouldn't be moving too much homey furniture into his D.C. office. I think a Kennedy may regain that seat in 2012.
- New Hampshire State Rep. Nancy Elliott (R) shared some of her visions of gay male sex at an executive session to repeal same sex-marriage. I wasn't sure I wanted to post this, but since my point is going to be that she's the real pervert, I'm going with it. "We're talking about taking the penis of one man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement. And you have to think, I'm not sure, would I allow that to be done to me?" She continued until interrupted by someone off camera, "Representative Elliott... Let's keep our discussion directly to the bill." She then went on with some other nonsense about it being taught in schools. That statement is such a blatent lie, yet anti-gay fear mongers continue to get away with saying it. And how can you visualize and describe in detail something you (allegedly) don't participate in?! If not participating, maybe she's into pornography? You know, most people secure with themselves don't put much thought into activities that don't affect them. The fact that this lunatic has put a lot of thought into this and was giving details creeps me out as to who she actually is. I hope NH voters send her to the unemployment line.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Brownie, You're Doing a Heck of a Job!
President Elect Scott Brown…What? He’s not President Elect? Ok, Senate Majority Leader Elect Sco…wha…he’s not that either? He’s not even sworn into office?! Then why the hell is the whole country watching his every move? Brown appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with Barbara Walters Sunday. She actually asked him if he was considering running for President in 2012 and although his first response was, “I don’t even have a business card yet”, he didn’t reject the idea either. When asked about Sarah Palin, he said he did believe she had the capacity to hold the office of the president. "I mean she's been a mayor and a governor and has a national following." And everything! Is he out of his freakin mind?! Why didn’t you talk about that when you were running for Senator instead of the GD truck?! He continued by saying, “I know she's very popular and has a new book out. I haven't read it and hope to someday." Oh my God Massachusetts, what have 52% of you done?
Brown claims he wants to hear from the generals before weighing in on repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Yeah right. I’m sure he’ll be an independent, thoughtful voice in regards to gay military personel. He has spoken out forcefully against same-sex marriage, supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban such unions. He continued by saying “it's settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states' rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis." That’s right, keep allowing majorities to restrict rights of minorities because you don’t “get it.” As a white playboy, he's never been discriminated against. In fact, he's probably been applauded for his "scores." There is no way he’s going to support the repeal of DADT. One of the things that does make me chuckle though, is one fact that these guys don’t seem to grasp; there are gay soldiers already serving and have since the start of time. This isn't a new millenium thing! It’s not like they’re all of a sudden going to start painting their rifles hot pink. Would they really rather not know? In fact, I would think that they’d prefer to know. On top of all that, he is also opposed the repeal of another Clinton gem, the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Did anybody who voted for this guy actually check his voting record and stances? Who is continuing to fall for his lines?
On abortion, he said he still was a supporter of Roe v. Wade, though he wanted to make it more difficult for abortions to take place. In other words, keep it legal, but make sure only women who have the money to pay for the procedure out of pocket have access. That way, when the unwanted child is born to a poor teenager, it'll be one more kid without a chance, two actually, but a Bible thumper somewhere will sleep better. Their job is done. That's my biggest problem with the "pro-life" movement. Why are they only concerned with the unborn? Once these kids are out of the womb, the next thing that happens is these "good" Christians start bitching that their tax money shouldn't go to support that teenage slut and her bastard child. Here’s what the smartest tactic would be. Make birth control easily accessible, teach people, especially teenagers the dangers of unprotected sex, but for Christ sakes, give up on this abstinence only nonsense. For the first time in ten years, teen pregnancy is up. Can’t these idiots see the correlation of time when sex education was forbidden in favor of abstinence only?
Here’s my fear people. First, the fact that Brown's arrogant enough to be considering running for President when he's only actually been to D.C. once in an official capacity. Secondly, thinking Sarah Palin has the capacity to hold the office of the president shows his lack of depth is equal to hers. Are the Republicans considering running two pretty faces for the highest office in the land while Rove, Gingrich and Cheney secretly run things in the background? We have such an easily impressed electorate, I really fear that’s where they’re heading. Many men (no offense to evolved males) would still probably have an issue with a woman running the show, but a pretty boy and a beauty queen, no problem!
For the record, beauty is subjective so these two have no appeal to this writer.
Let's close with these nuggets. He's against fees on the big banks that received bailout money. He wants no new regulation of the financial markets. And he wants to maintain Bush tax cuts after 2010. In essence, he wants to follow the failed policies that got us here. Once again I ask, did anybody who voted for this guy actually check his voting record and stances? Well, at least he said he was for term limits! So I agree with him on something.
Click on Scott Brown to see what we really got and please notice all the activity that seemed to begin with his race to the Senate. Where was he between July 2004 and September 2009? Just as important, why couldn't Martha Coakley and her team do this simple research?
Brown claims he wants to hear from the generals before weighing in on repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Yeah right. I’m sure he’ll be an independent, thoughtful voice in regards to gay military personel. He has spoken out forcefully against same-sex marriage, supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban such unions. He continued by saying “it's settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states' rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis." That’s right, keep allowing majorities to restrict rights of minorities because you don’t “get it.” As a white playboy, he's never been discriminated against. In fact, he's probably been applauded for his "scores." There is no way he’s going to support the repeal of DADT. One of the things that does make me chuckle though, is one fact that these guys don’t seem to grasp; there are gay soldiers already serving and have since the start of time. This isn't a new millenium thing! It’s not like they’re all of a sudden going to start painting their rifles hot pink. Would they really rather not know? In fact, I would think that they’d prefer to know. On top of all that, he is also opposed the repeal of another Clinton gem, the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Did anybody who voted for this guy actually check his voting record and stances? Who is continuing to fall for his lines?
On abortion, he said he still was a supporter of Roe v. Wade, though he wanted to make it more difficult for abortions to take place. In other words, keep it legal, but make sure only women who have the money to pay for the procedure out of pocket have access. That way, when the unwanted child is born to a poor teenager, it'll be one more kid without a chance, two actually, but a Bible thumper somewhere will sleep better. Their job is done. That's my biggest problem with the "pro-life" movement. Why are they only concerned with the unborn? Once these kids are out of the womb, the next thing that happens is these "good" Christians start bitching that their tax money shouldn't go to support that teenage slut and her bastard child. Here’s what the smartest tactic would be. Make birth control easily accessible, teach people, especially teenagers the dangers of unprotected sex, but for Christ sakes, give up on this abstinence only nonsense. For the first time in ten years, teen pregnancy is up. Can’t these idiots see the correlation of time when sex education was forbidden in favor of abstinence only?
Here’s my fear people. First, the fact that Brown's arrogant enough to be considering running for President when he's only actually been to D.C. once in an official capacity. Secondly, thinking Sarah Palin has the capacity to hold the office of the president shows his lack of depth is equal to hers. Are the Republicans considering running two pretty faces for the highest office in the land while Rove, Gingrich and Cheney secretly run things in the background? We have such an easily impressed electorate, I really fear that’s where they’re heading. Many men (no offense to evolved males) would still probably have an issue with a woman running the show, but a pretty boy and a beauty queen, no problem!
For the record, beauty is subjective so these two have no appeal to this writer.
Let's close with these nuggets. He's against fees on the big banks that received bailout money. He wants no new regulation of the financial markets. And he wants to maintain Bush tax cuts after 2010. In essence, he wants to follow the failed policies that got us here. Once again I ask, did anybody who voted for this guy actually check his voting record and stances? Well, at least he said he was for term limits! So I agree with him on something.
Click on Scott Brown to see what we really got and please notice all the activity that seemed to begin with his race to the Senate. Where was he between July 2004 and September 2009? Just as important, why couldn't Martha Coakley and her team do this simple research?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Obama Finally Has His Mojo Working ... I Hope It's Not Too Late
It’s been quite a week! I have to say, as much as it still bothers me that Tea Party Express candidate Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election to fill the remainder of Senator Ted Kennedy’s term, maybe something good will come out of it. Maybe it was the dose of reality that President Obama needed to see instead of relying on Rahm Emanual’s continuous poor advice. Massachusetts wasn’t lost because residents were against a national health care policy like conservative media is playing it. It was lost because the public option was removed, but the mandate remained. Massachusetts already has RomneyCare so it would’ve been a double-dip. When the public option was still in, so were 70% of Mass residents. On January 19th, 52% of our voters were fed up with the deal making encouraged by Emanual and they supported the guy with the truck…and five homes. Since the election, much has been written as to “what happened?” As bad of a campaign as Martha Coakley ran, the disgust with the numerous sellouts is what really happened.
One more thing about the Brown election. The loss of the super majority never bothered me because Democrats never really had it. Yeah, it looked good on paper and even on paper you were counting Joe Liebermann. He can’t be counted on for anything except serving his own ego. The reality is, those 60 votes included a bunch of conservative senators who really had no interest in voting with the majority of the Democrats on much of anything. Their little myth of 60 reliable votes led the Democrats to draft policies in a way that they thought maybe could get all of those 60 votes. Just look at the health care reform debacle. Maybe now, with that nonsense out of the way, they can actually craft bills that make sense. If senators want to filibuster, let them. Make them stand on the floor and explain why they’re against any number of policies that might come forward including a strong health insurance reform bill. Let them explain their positioning with the health insurance industry instead of tax paying Americans...who vote. The good Democrats need to stop worrying about the "threat" of the filibuster. Call their bluff and let them do it, damn it!
Now, the good part! This week, for the first time since he took office, I'm seeing the fire in Obama that most of us had hoped for initially. On Wednesday night, he took charge of the room during the State of the Union address. Granted, he said a few cringe worthy things, but I guess he felt he needed toss some bones to the conservatives. Just to jog your memory, he mentioned off-shore drilling, capital gains cuts, business tax cuts, the spending freeze, so-called “clean coal --- all Republican talking points that will do very little besides antagonize progressives. He dinged the Senate on several occasions for holding up progress. However, when he called out the senate Republicans for being obstructionists by demanding a filibuster-proof majority for every single bill, I just hoped America was listening. By the way, before someone suggests that it’s always been like this, no it hasn’t. According to the Senate historical office, the number of Senate cloture votes, which require a supermajority of 60, more than doubled — from 54 to 112 — from the 109th Congress (2005-2006) to the 110th (2007-2008). I also enjoyed him looking at the Democrats and telling them they still have a huge majority and “not run for the hills.” Of course many of the Republicans just sat there chuckling throughout because saying no and distorting facts has been working for them. I think it was very telling that the only time Republicans rose to their feet in applause was when pro-business related ideas were mentioned. Anything domestic was scoffed at. Many of the domestic ideas Obama laid out are things that working Americans want to see. On the top of my list was the fees he wants to impose on the big banks that got bailout money, but decided to give mega bonuses to their executives instead of paying taxpayers back. That's a very populist idea. The look on Republican faces said it all. Then there was his shot at the Supreme Court's disasterous decision that I wrote about last week. "With all due deference to the separation of powers, the court last week reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." The statement prompted Justice Samuel Alito to mutter, "simply not true." Right on Barack! How sad and broken are our politics when the President of the United States has to scold everyone in the room.
Then on Friday, Obama headed to the Republicans turf. He appeared at their retreat in Baltimore to take questions and give answers. He kicked ass! He did so well, Fox News discontinued coverage part way through as he destroyed talking points and their lies. By the way, since he's often mocked for his use of a teleprompter, I want to point out that there was none. The man showed them all who the smart guy in the room was. Republican aides later admitted that they shouldn't have agreed to let the cameras roll throughout. One of the senators I dislike most based on various interviews I've seen with him is Mike Pence of Indiana. He asked the first question, actually several all rolled into a statement which Obama handled masterfully. Pence said Obama was trying to defend "a so-called stimulus that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts." In part, Obama replied, "When you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true." I did see a replay of the event last night and while not all the Republicans looked like complete fools, none of them had command of the very subject they asked about the way Obama did. Here's a good one: When it was over, orange House Republican leader tan-in-a-can John Boehner of Ohio issued a statement saying Obama "acknowledged the fact that House Republicans have offered better solutions over the last year." Oh my God, can these guys get any more delusional?
If you missed the Q & A, find 66 minutes of your time. It is well worth it:
Quick Thoughts: North Carolina Representative Virginia Foxx (R) said "Obama lectured us, but I got his autograph." Wowee! She got the autograph of a man she thinks is a Kenyan. In addition, for anyone who doesn't know what else this witch stands against, here you go: Last year she vehemently argued against the The Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. She claimed those who say Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming for being gay are perpetrating a "hoax" on the American people. She claimed he was accidentally killed in a robbery gone wrong. She ended up apologizing to Shepard's mother who was at the hearings. Typical homophobic imbecile in denial who can't or won't read. The New York Times reported in 1998: "According to the local police and prosecutors, the two men lured Mr. Shepard out of a bar by saying they were gay. Then, the Laramie police say, the pair kidnapped Mr. Shepard, pistol-whipped him with a .357 Magnum, and left him tied to a ranch fence for 18 hours until a passing bicyclist spotted Mr. Shepard, who was unconscious." He later died from the injuries.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama on October 28, 2009
Way to go North Carolina. Is this really the best you can do?
One more thing about the Brown election. The loss of the super majority never bothered me because Democrats never really had it. Yeah, it looked good on paper and even on paper you were counting Joe Liebermann. He can’t be counted on for anything except serving his own ego. The reality is, those 60 votes included a bunch of conservative senators who really had no interest in voting with the majority of the Democrats on much of anything. Their little myth of 60 reliable votes led the Democrats to draft policies in a way that they thought maybe could get all of those 60 votes. Just look at the health care reform debacle. Maybe now, with that nonsense out of the way, they can actually craft bills that make sense. If senators want to filibuster, let them. Make them stand on the floor and explain why they’re against any number of policies that might come forward including a strong health insurance reform bill. Let them explain their positioning with the health insurance industry instead of tax paying Americans...who vote. The good Democrats need to stop worrying about the "threat" of the filibuster. Call their bluff and let them do it, damn it!
Now, the good part! This week, for the first time since he took office, I'm seeing the fire in Obama that most of us had hoped for initially. On Wednesday night, he took charge of the room during the State of the Union address. Granted, he said a few cringe worthy things, but I guess he felt he needed toss some bones to the conservatives. Just to jog your memory, he mentioned off-shore drilling, capital gains cuts, business tax cuts, the spending freeze, so-called “clean coal --- all Republican talking points that will do very little besides antagonize progressives. He dinged the Senate on several occasions for holding up progress. However, when he called out the senate Republicans for being obstructionists by demanding a filibuster-proof majority for every single bill, I just hoped America was listening. By the way, before someone suggests that it’s always been like this, no it hasn’t. According to the Senate historical office, the number of Senate cloture votes, which require a supermajority of 60, more than doubled — from 54 to 112 — from the 109th Congress (2005-2006) to the 110th (2007-2008). I also enjoyed him looking at the Democrats and telling them they still have a huge majority and “not run for the hills.” Of course many of the Republicans just sat there chuckling throughout because saying no and distorting facts has been working for them. I think it was very telling that the only time Republicans rose to their feet in applause was when pro-business related ideas were mentioned. Anything domestic was scoffed at. Many of the domestic ideas Obama laid out are things that working Americans want to see. On the top of my list was the fees he wants to impose on the big banks that got bailout money, but decided to give mega bonuses to their executives instead of paying taxpayers back. That's a very populist idea. The look on Republican faces said it all. Then there was his shot at the Supreme Court's disasterous decision that I wrote about last week. "With all due deference to the separation of powers, the court last week reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." The statement prompted Justice Samuel Alito to mutter, "simply not true." Right on Barack! How sad and broken are our politics when the President of the United States has to scold everyone in the room.
Then on Friday, Obama headed to the Republicans turf. He appeared at their retreat in Baltimore to take questions and give answers. He kicked ass! He did so well, Fox News discontinued coverage part way through as he destroyed talking points and their lies. By the way, since he's often mocked for his use of a teleprompter, I want to point out that there was none. The man showed them all who the smart guy in the room was. Republican aides later admitted that they shouldn't have agreed to let the cameras roll throughout. One of the senators I dislike most based on various interviews I've seen with him is Mike Pence of Indiana. He asked the first question, actually several all rolled into a statement which Obama handled masterfully. Pence said Obama was trying to defend "a so-called stimulus that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts." In part, Obama replied, "When you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true." I did see a replay of the event last night and while not all the Republicans looked like complete fools, none of them had command of the very subject they asked about the way Obama did. Here's a good one: When it was over, orange House Republican leader tan-in-a-can John Boehner of Ohio issued a statement saying Obama "acknowledged the fact that House Republicans have offered better solutions over the last year." Oh my God, can these guys get any more delusional?
If you missed the Q & A, find 66 minutes of your time. It is well worth it:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Quick Thoughts: North Carolina Representative Virginia Foxx (R) said "Obama lectured us, but I got his autograph." Wowee! She got the autograph of a man she thinks is a Kenyan. In addition, for anyone who doesn't know what else this witch stands against, here you go: Last year she vehemently argued against the The Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. She claimed those who say Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming for being gay are perpetrating a "hoax" on the American people. She claimed he was accidentally killed in a robbery gone wrong. She ended up apologizing to Shepard's mother who was at the hearings. Typical homophobic imbecile in denial who can't or won't read. The New York Times reported in 1998: "According to the local police and prosecutors, the two men lured Mr. Shepard out of a bar by saying they were gay. Then, the Laramie police say, the pair kidnapped Mr. Shepard, pistol-whipped him with a .357 Magnum, and left him tied to a ranch fence for 18 hours until a passing bicyclist spotted Mr. Shepard, who was unconscious." He later died from the injuries.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law by President Barack Obama on October 28, 2009
Way to go North Carolina. Is this really the best you can do?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Say It Ain't So, Massachusetts!
On Tuesday, the 19th of January, our little ol' state of Massachusetts will be holding a special election to replace the seat once held by Senator Ted Kennedy. Democrat Martha Coakley is in a tight battle with Republican Scott Brown. The thing is, this should've been an easy win for Coakley, but I honestly think someone was whispering in her ear that "it's in the bag" so she hadn't been doing much campaigning until the polls started tightening. Brown on the other hand has been pretty aggressive and has had money pumped into the state from outside sources. I will be shocked and dismayed if our state elects a Bush-clone to the seat once held by Kennedy.
To me, this is about so much more than the health care debate. Brown’s positions are actually lock-step with what Bush and Cheney did…tax cuts for the wealthy, protections for business, he’s against the fees Obama has proposed on big banks to get bailout money returned in entirety, health care for all as long as it’s done through private insurers, doesn’t care about the environment, etc… On gay marriage: "Marriage issues should be left up to the states, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.” In other words, keep letting the majority decide on the rights of a minority. He’s been endorsed by the hate group, MassResistance. I wonder what would’ve happened in 1967 if inter-racial marriage was put up for vote as a popularity contest? I’m a bit confused about his stance on abortion since it seems to change depending on his audience. At one point he stated: “While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion.” First, let me just say that I hate the term partial birth abortion, just as much as I resent being called pro-abortion. The anti-abortion crowd just keeps on coming out with terms to place fear in women. As a very pro-choice individual, I also recognize that late term abortions are no longer a clear cut decision between a woman and her doctor. At a certain point, you’ve taken on some responsibility whether you realize it or not. I’m not a believer that life starts at conception, rather at individual viability. That is when the decision becomes tricky since the woman has had several months to decide, life/health of the mother obviously excluded. However, Brown also sponsored an amendment to a 2005 bill on emergency contraception that would have let emergency room doctors or nurses turn away rape victims if they had religious objections to providing emergency contraception. Rape victims! They’ve already been violently victimized once and now they’re going to get victimized by the very people who are supposed to help them? My feeling has always been you need to leave your personal feelings at the door in any profession. If you can’t do your job every single day in every single way, you need to find another line of work. It’s as simple as that.
Here’s what I find somewhat interesting. In June of 1982, Scott Brown won Cosmopolitan’s “America’s Sexiest Man” contest and posed nude for the centerfold. Isn’t this the family values party? Didn’t fellow Tea-bagger Sarah Palin say her former, future son-in-law Levi Johnson was doing porn by posing in Playgirl? What’s the difference? Enquiring minds want to know. I’d also love to hear the roar if it was the Democrat who had done the nude layout. It would’ve been scandalous! What I think is mind-boggling is in their ongoing hypocrisy. Their defense is that it’s ok because he’s good looking! So what, Obama is too. The right wing went nuts over a photo just as old as this one, of Obama smoking a cigarette because of the message that it sends to the youth of America. Conservatives really are one dimensional cretins.
Today President Obama will arrive in Boston to help gin up the base to turn out on Tuesday. I’ve been getting robo-calls from Obama, Bill Clinton, Martha Coakley and sadly Scott Brown (I’d love a live call) who’s been endorsed and heavily funded by the Tea Party Express. I hope it’s not a question of too little, too late. Martha Coakley is not an exciting candidate by any stretch, but the alternative is not acceptable. What a sick twist in irony it will be when Houston, TX just elected a lesbian Mayor and liberal Massachusetts ends up with a Tea Bagger in the senate if this doesn’t go well. If that happens, I hope the Democrats find a strong candidate to run for the full term in 2012.
To me, this is about so much more than the health care debate. Brown’s positions are actually lock-step with what Bush and Cheney did…tax cuts for the wealthy, protections for business, he’s against the fees Obama has proposed on big banks to get bailout money returned in entirety, health care for all as long as it’s done through private insurers, doesn’t care about the environment, etc… On gay marriage: "Marriage issues should be left up to the states, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.” In other words, keep letting the majority decide on the rights of a minority. He’s been endorsed by the hate group, MassResistance. I wonder what would’ve happened in 1967 if inter-racial marriage was put up for vote as a popularity contest? I’m a bit confused about his stance on abortion since it seems to change depending on his audience. At one point he stated: “While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion.” First, let me just say that I hate the term partial birth abortion, just as much as I resent being called pro-abortion. The anti-abortion crowd just keeps on coming out with terms to place fear in women. As a very pro-choice individual, I also recognize that late term abortions are no longer a clear cut decision between a woman and her doctor. At a certain point, you’ve taken on some responsibility whether you realize it or not. I’m not a believer that life starts at conception, rather at individual viability. That is when the decision becomes tricky since the woman has had several months to decide, life/health of the mother obviously excluded. However, Brown also sponsored an amendment to a 2005 bill on emergency contraception that would have let emergency room doctors or nurses turn away rape victims if they had religious objections to providing emergency contraception. Rape victims! They’ve already been violently victimized once and now they’re going to get victimized by the very people who are supposed to help them? My feeling has always been you need to leave your personal feelings at the door in any profession. If you can’t do your job every single day in every single way, you need to find another line of work. It’s as simple as that.
Here’s what I find somewhat interesting. In June of 1982, Scott Brown won Cosmopolitan’s “America’s Sexiest Man” contest and posed nude for the centerfold. Isn’t this the family values party? Didn’t fellow Tea-bagger Sarah Palin say her former, future son-in-law Levi Johnson was doing porn by posing in Playgirl? What’s the difference? Enquiring minds want to know. I’d also love to hear the roar if it was the Democrat who had done the nude layout. It would’ve been scandalous! What I think is mind-boggling is in their ongoing hypocrisy. Their defense is that it’s ok because he’s good looking! So what, Obama is too. The right wing went nuts over a photo just as old as this one, of Obama smoking a cigarette because of the message that it sends to the youth of America. Conservatives really are one dimensional cretins.
Today President Obama will arrive in Boston to help gin up the base to turn out on Tuesday. I’ve been getting robo-calls from Obama, Bill Clinton, Martha Coakley and sadly Scott Brown (I’d love a live call) who’s been endorsed and heavily funded by the Tea Party Express. I hope it’s not a question of too little, too late. Martha Coakley is not an exciting candidate by any stretch, but the alternative is not acceptable. What a sick twist in irony it will be when Houston, TX just elected a lesbian Mayor and liberal Massachusetts ends up with a Tea Bagger in the senate if this doesn’t go well. If that happens, I hope the Democrats find a strong candidate to run for the full term in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
