So Scott Brown Won.

[Ugmo]

You know what's interesting about this Scott Brown fella is he is apparently in favor of health care reform himself. AND he's facing reelection in two years in a very liberal state. This doesn't seem like an ideal candidate for obstruction. The Republicans may find that he is willing to work together with Democrats to get a decent plan through.

[bane]

You know what's interesting about this Scott Brown fella is he is apparently in favor of health care reform himself. AND he's facing reelection in two years in a very liberal state. This doesn't seem like an ideal candidate for obstruction. The Republicans may find that he is willing to work together with Democrats to get a decent plan through.

He is in favor of reform. Almost everybody is in favor of reform. Reform doesn't necessarily mean what you may think it means though.

[Ugmo]

He is in favor of reform. Almost everybody is in favor of reform. Reform doesn't necessarily mean what you may think it means though.

See, I don't believe this. Everybody says they're in favor of reform because no one wants to seem like they're holding up the works, but when pressed the Republicans sure didn't appear to have much of a proposal. I know you and I disagree on this, but to me it's pretty obvious that the Republicans' number one priority is depriving the Democrats of a victory on pretty much anything so as to win back some of the seats they lost last November.

But this dude Scott Brown actually is in favor of reform - he voted in favor of the Massachusetts health care reform law, which is very progressive:

The Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006. It requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1], and partially subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. The law is credited with covering an additional 439,000 Massachusetts residents as of April 1, 2008.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachuse ... are_reform

This guy doesn't want John Boehner's version of health care reform, he wants what a lot of the House Democrats want. I think the Republicans might end up being disappointed with this guy if they think he's going to help them obstruct the Democratic proposals.

[Ugmo]

Bane, if you doubt the Republicans' number one priority is to make political gains, check this out:

Len Nichols, a health economist with the New America Foundation, said he still thinks the best way forward for Democrats would be to return to Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, and possibly her fellow moderate Maine Republican, Susan Collins, and strike a compromise.

“I know just from interacting with staff on both sides of the aisle that she and Collins engaged in various amendments right up until the end,’’ he said. “I don’t think they are beyond the pale.’’

But others doubted that strategy would work. After Brown’s victory, Republicans would put almost inconceivable pressure on any member of the GOP who would offer political smelling salts to their adversaries.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... gy/?page=2

In other words, even if individual Republicans want to work with Democrats on a compromise, the party doesn't want that to happen, because they think it would hurt their chances of making gains in the mid-terms.

[bane]

Well, The GOP came up with a healthcare reform proposal. It is radically different from what the dems have proposed, but they do have a proposal. I guess you can think that they're only doing so as to not appear to be obstructionists, but I think they're doing it because the vast majority of Americans want reform. Their proposal addresses the issues that most Americans feel are the most important, IE: pre existing condition clauses etc. It also comes with a price tag that is a whole lot easier to stomach than either Pelosi's plan or the senate plan. I realize that guys like you and Lerx will ridicule it as not being enough, but I firmly believe we're going to end up with some form of compromise or nothing at all.

[Tenacious_Dio]

The problem isn't the Republicans. It will be the moderate Democrats. After what happened in Massachusetts (of all places), you can bet some will start to get cold feet.

[bane]

Bane, if you doubt the Republicans' number one priority is to make political gains, check this out:

Len Nichols, a health economist with the New America Foundation, said he still thinks the best way forward for Democrats would be to return to Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, and possibly her fellow moderate Maine Republican, Susan Collins, and strike a compromise.

“I know just from interacting with staff on both sides of the aisle that she and Collins engaged in various amendments right up until the end,’’ he said. “I don’t think they are beyond the pale.’’

But others doubted that strategy would work. After Brown’s victory, Republicans would put almost inconceivable pressure on any member of the GOP who would offer political smelling salts to their adversaries.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... gy/?page=2

In other words, even if individual Republicans want to work with Democrats on a compromise, the party doesn't want that to happen, because they think it would hurt their chances of making gains in the mid-terms.

Of course it's their number one priority. It's the dems number one priority as well. That's why the dems won't pass the reconcilliation. They're worried about losing their seats. That said, Snowe and Collins are moderates. They, along with Brown may be able to actually get beyond the pissing match and get something done. The GOP won a huge victory yesterday, but if they sit around and toot their horns they'll lose what they just won. They can't appear to be as solidly obstructionist as they did a month ago because they'll be percieved as the same arrogant assholes that everybody thinks Reid and Pelosi are right now. It's politics man, but that doesn't mean that when a plan is agreed upon that they can stomach that they won't vote their conscience and, you know, actually do something that's good for the country.

[Ugmo]

Well, The GOP came up with a healthcare reform proposal. It is radically different from what the dems have proposed, but they do have a proposal. I guess you can think that they're only doing so as to not appear to be obstructionists, but I think they're doing it because the vast majority of Americans want reform. Their proposal addresses the issues that most Americans feel are the most important, IE: pre existing condition clauses etc. It also comes with a price tag that is a whole lot easier to stomach than either Pelosi's plan or the senate plan. I realize that guys like you and Lerx will ridicule it as not being enough, but I firmly believe we're going to end up with some form of compromise or nothing at all.

Their proposal was a complete joke. We discussed that in another thread. After months of blocking Democratic efforts and being called out on it they produced a half-hearted joke of a proposal.

The problem isn't the Republicans. It will be the moderate Democrats. After what happened in Massachusetts (of all places), you can bet some will start to get cold feet.

They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. But I think they are more damned if they fail to get any health care reform bill through. That's why the Democrats will end up fighting like hell to get something passed, because failure on this will really hurt them in November.

[bane]

Their proposal was a complete joke.

Somehow I knew you were gonna say that.

[Ugmo]

Of course it's their number one priority. It's the dems number one priority as well. That's why the dems won't pass the reconcilliation. They're worried about losing their seats. That said, Snowe and Collins are moderates. They, along with Brown may be able to actually get beyond the pissing match and get something done. The GOP won a huge victory yesterday, but if they sit around and toot their horns they'll lose what they just won. They can't appear to be as solidly obstructionist as they did a month ago because they'll be percieved as the same arrogant assholes that everybody thinks Reid and Pelosi are right now. It's politics man, but that doesn't mean that when a plan is agreed upon that they can stomach that they won't vote their conscience and, you know, actually do something that's good for the country.

I think winning campaigns is the number one priority for both parties, but at least the Democrats have other priorities. The Republicans don't appear to. If I were a sitting politician I would go independent Bernie Sanders-style so I could answer solely to my constituents and not be forced to do the party's bidding all the time. You have to be pretty popular to make that work, but it's the best way.

[Ugmo]

Their proposal was a complete joke.

Somehow I knew you were gonna say that.

How else would you describe this:

The different goals and effects of the GOP bill are reflected in a preliminary analysis released Wednesday evening by the Congressional Budget Office, which put the bill's 10-year price tag at $61 billion. That is far less than the $1 trillion estimate for the Democratic bill that House leaders plan to bring to the floor as soon as this weekend.

But the CBO analysis also concluded that under the GOP plan, 52 million nonelderly Americans would have no insurance in 2019 -- even more than the 50 million in 2010. By comparison, the House Democratic bill would reduce the number of nonelderly Americans without coverage to around 18 million over the next decade.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05 ... ealth-gop5

I mean, what's the point? That proposal screams "We're not obstructionist. We have a plan. Really, we do. Just give us a couple of weeks to cobble one together."

[VinnieKulick]

Maybe I'm a tard, but I don't see how this affects health care reform. The Senate bill passed at Christmas... surely Scott Brown's victory doesn't retroactively scuttle that.

To this I say:

REALLY?

All your crying about how the GOP were obstructing reform and how it was impossible to push through because of the 40 people who are GOP being against it, and now you can sit here, without the slightest hint of irony and say you DONT SEE HOW THIS AFFECTS THE REFORM?

This effects the reform, because the people who think both versions of this bill are bullshit, can delay a vote by fillabustering it and the Dems can't move for cloture.

But, you know that, because I've been telling you that for a few weeks now.

[bane]

I think winning campaigns is the number one priority for both parties, but at least the Democrats have other priorities. The Republicans don't appear to. If I were a sitting politician I would go independent Bernie Sanders-style so I could answer solely to my constituents and not be forced to do the party's bidding all the time. You have to be pretty popular to make that work, but it's the best way.

The minority party, regardless of which one it is, is always on the defensive, so yeah, it may appear that they don't have priorites other than trying to counteract the party that represents ideals that are contrary to their own. That's the case right now. The same could be said for the dems a few short years ago. It's politics as usual. Other than that, yeah, I agree with you 100%. Partisanship sucks balls and independants pretty much kick ass.

[VinnieKulick]

And, can we stop with the "GOP DOESN'T WANT REFORM" bullshit?


We want reform, but we want it to be FINANCIALLY sound reform.

[Ugmo]

The minority party, regardless of which one it is, is always on the defensive, so yeah, it may appear that they don't have priorites other than trying to counteract the party that represents ideals that are contrary to their own. That's the case right now. The same could be said for the dems a few short years ago. It's politics as usual. Other than that, yeah, I agree with you 100%. Partisanship sucks balls and independants pretty much kick ass.

I think it's the nature of the beast. The majority party in Congress has to get things done, otherwise it will suffer at the polls. So the minority party does its damnedest to keep the majority from getting anything done. Since the GOP has traditionally been the minority party in modern times, they've gotten real comfortable with the role of obstructionist.

And, can we stop with the "GOP DOESN'T WANT REFORM" bullshit?

We want reform, but we want it to be FINANCIALLY sound reform.

See above. You may want reform. Other Republican voters might want reform. But the Republican politicians don't want reform, as it would not be politically expedient for them for reform to pass under a Democratic majority. Sad but true.

[Ugmo]

Maybe I'm a tard, but I don't see how this affects health care reform. The Senate bill passed at Christmas... surely Scott Brown's victory doesn't retroactively scuttle that.

To this I say:

REALLY?

All your crying about how the GOP were obstructing reform and how it was impossible to push through because of the 40 people who are GOP being against it, and now you can sit here, without the slightest hint of irony and say you DONT SEE HOW THIS AFFECTS THE REFORM?

This effects the reform, because the people who think both versions of this bill are bullshit, can delay a vote by fillabustering it and the Dems can't move for cloture.

But, you know that, because I've been telling you that for a few weeks now.

I guess you should have read on, because I realized my mistake and corrected it a post or two later. I didn't realize the House/Senate compromise bill had to be voted on again by both chambers.

[KneelandBobDylan]

Sorry meant to click edit.

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Sorry meant to click edit.

Sure you did, you bleeding heart pot smoking hippie.

Oh, and Ugmo likes Europe.

Just checking in. How's everyone doing?

[KneelandBobDylan]

Sorry meant to click edit.

Sure you did, you bleeding heart pot smoking hippie.

Oh, and Ugmo likes Europe.

Just checking in. How's everyone doing?

Smoking pot, hugging trees. you know, typical hippy shit.

[Ugmo]

Europe rules.

The band is pretty good too! Seeing them at the end of the month.

[tin00can]

Anyone who doesn't think this is a message about the democrats and health care reform obviously isn't paying attention. People are smelling something rotten and they are reacting in the best way possible, at the polling station.

Conversely, anyone who thinks this is a mandate for the republican party should remember that just over a year ago there was a mandate to change FROM the republican party. The electorate is fickle and mandates rarely last. Also, if one month ago you would have asked Republicans if the voters in Massachusetts had the pulse of America they would have said you were nuts.

[VinnieKulick]

I would argue that a year ago, it was a mandate that people were tired of BUSH.

And, they were too stupid to realize that he wasn't running, and that they'd be fine without him. Glad that McCain didn't win. I just have no confidence in him at all.

[tin00can]

I would argue that a year ago, it was a mandate that people were tired of BUSH.

And, they were too stupid to realize that he wasn't running, and that they'd be fine without him. Glad that McCain didn't win. I just have no confidence in him at all.

And Bush, as the president, was the face of the republican party, just like Clinton was for the dems in 2000.

[bane]

Anyone who doesn't think this is a message about the democrats and health care reform obviously isn't paying attention. People are smelling something rotten and they are reacting in the best way possible, at the polling station.

I don't know about that. I think that was a big part of it, but maybe it's got just as much to do with Brown running a great campaign when his opponent sucked at it. Maybe it's the anger over that whole "entitlement seat" thing. Maybe it's all of the above. I don't see how we can really look at Mass as the voice of the entire country. I do agree that congress will take it as a message though, and act accordingly.

[SkyDog112046]

I'm an Independent from Massachusetts and I voted for Brown too. And speaking to other people who were leaving the polls in what is traditionally a Democratic area the majority of them voted for Brown as well.

There were several reasons I went with Brown over Coakley, and none of them had anything to do with gender as I voted for Healy over Patrick in the previous gubernatorial election.

My reasons:
1. One-party rule is a dangerous thing and having 41 Republicans in the Senate gives a chance to block bad bills.
2. While I would like to see healthcare reformed the current healthcare bill is a bloated mess that includes a lot of pork used as bribes. How about making a bill that a majority of the reps can back? Brown will stop the current bill.
3. Mass Democrats are a bunch of smug elitists with a ridiculous sense of entitlement. They kept saying that the open seat belonged to them. They went so far as to pass a law a few years back so that a Republican governor couldn't appoint someone to an open seat with the reasoning that it should be up to the people to send a representative to DC. Fine, I can agree with that but as soon as a Democrat became governor they decided it was ok for a governor to appoint someone and tried to block an election from taking place. Fucking hypocrites. What ever happened to the "people's voice"? Just another case of leftist Mass Democrats deciding that people don't deserve to make a choice because they don't know what's good for them. Voting for Brown sends a message to them that they can't keep things status quo.
4. The media here(especially the Boston Globe and Channel 5) for the most part went out of their way to steer the vote towards Coakley and discourage people from going out to vote for Brown. They kept saying that the overwhelming majority of people they spoke to leaving the polls were voting for Coakley. Here is a race that the neutral polls showed was very close and all the while they are showing nothing but people voting for Coakley and saying that the race is over in an effort to dissuade Brown voters from coming to the polls later in the day. That goes right along with the Globe reporting a 15% margin in their supposedly neutral poll just prior to the election while most other sources were saying it was within 2 points. Even more reason to get out and vote for Brown.
5. Martha Coakley just didn't have the legislative experience that Scott Brown has, and her record as a prosecutor shows that she is a vindictive bitch - see the Fells Acre Daycare case and what she did to an obviously innocent man.

A lot of the people who voted here yesterday listed many of the same reasons I just listed. You may not agree with everything I did list, but those are the main reasons why Brown got elected and Coakley didn't.

[Ugmo]

The supermajority was a myth anyway. It's not like all 58 Democrats and the two independents were on the same page on most of the issues.

[Chevyman]

thank you people of Massachusetts

[tin00can]

The supermajority was a myth anyway. It's not like all 58 Democrats and the two independents were on the same page on most of the issues.

I've been saying since the start of last year that the dems would find a way to fuck up the health-care reform bill and not pass anything significant. Looks like as usual, I'm correct.

[VinnieKulick]

I would argue that a year ago, it was a mandate that people were tired of BUSH.

And, they were too stupid to realize that he wasn't running, and that they'd be fine without him. Glad that McCain didn't win. I just have no confidence in him at all.

And Bush, as the president, was the face of the republican party, just like Clinton was for the dems in 2000.

I wouldn't go that far. McCain didn't want him campaigning on his behalf, nor did a lot of the GOP in state races.
Bush alienated a vast majority of independents, who would otherwise trend towards the right.

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

I'm an Independent from Massachusetts and I voted for Brown too. And speaking to other people who were leaving the polls in what is traditionally a Democratic area the majority of them voted for Brown as well.

There were several reasons I went with Brown over Coakley, and none of them had anything to do with gender as I voted for Healy over Patrick in the previous gubernatorial election.

My reasons:
1. One-party rule is a dangerous thing and having 41 Republicans in the Senate gives a chance to block bad bills.
2. While I would like to see healthcare reformed the current healthcare bill is a bloated mess that includes a lot of pork used as bribes. How about making a bill that a majority of the reps can back? Brown will stop the current bill.
3. Mass Democrats are a bunch of smug elitists with a ridiculous sense of entitlement. They kept saying that the open seat belonged to them. They went so far as to pass a law a few years back so that a Republican governor couldn't appoint someone to an open seat with the reasoning that it should be up to the people to send a representative to DC. Fine, I can agree with that but as soon as a Democrat became governor they decided it was ok for a governor to appoint someone and tried to block an election from taking place. Fucking hypocrites. What ever happened to the "people's voice"? Just another case of leftist Mass Democrats deciding that people don't deserve to make a choice because they don't know what's good for them. Voting for Brown sends a message to them that they can't keep things status quo.
4. The media here(especially the Boston Globe and Channel 5) for the most part went out of their way to steer the vote towards Coakley and discourage people from going out to vote for Brown. They kept saying that the overwhelming majority of people they spoke to leaving the polls were voting for Coakley. Here is a race that the neutral polls showed was very close and all the while they are showing nothing but people voting for Coakley and saying that the race is over in an effort to dissuade Brown voters from coming to the polls later in the day. That goes right along with the Globe reporting a 15% margin in their supposedly neutral poll just prior to the election while most other sources were saying it was within 2 points. Even more reason to get out and vote for Brown.
5. Martha Coakley just didn't have the legislative experience that Scott Brown has, and her record as a prosecutor shows that she is a vindictive bitch - see the Fells Acre Daycare case and what she did to an obviously innocent man.

A lot of the people who voted here yesterday listed many of the same reasons I just listed. You may not agree with everything I did list, but those are the main reasons why Brown got elected and Coakley didn't.

#3 just about has me applauding your post, and makes me change my mind about unbanning Rev. He gets ONE day to eat shit just like his elitist Masshole buddies are doing today.