BS: Mass. Senatorial race

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:15 PM

Mousethief:

How DARE you take issue with the Simple Seeker After Truth and Fount of All Knowledge????

Know ye not his omniscient nature??? And his awful vengeance??

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:32 PM

You so don't deserve me.

American Heritage Dictionary: Since the Greek phrase includes an article, some critics have argued that the phrase the hoi polloi is redundant. But phrases borrowed from other languages are often reanalyzed in English as single words. For example, a number of Arabic noun phrases were borrowed into English as simple nouns. The Arabic element al- means "the," and appears in English nouns such as alcohol and alchemy. Thus, since no one would consider a phrase such as "the alcohol" to be redundant, criticizing the hoi polloi on similar grounds seems pedantic.

Common Errors in English Usage (Paul Brians): Some urge that since "hoi" is the article "the hoi polloi" is redundant; but the general rule is that articles such as "the" and "a" in foreign language phrases cease to function as such in place names, brands, and catch phrases except for some of the most familiar ones in French and Spanish, where everyone recognizes "la"—for instance—as meaning "the." "The El Nino" is redundant, but "the hoi polloi" is standard English.

The Oxford English Dictionary: In English use normally preceded by the definite article even though hoi means 'the'.

Bite me.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:24 PM

Sorry, mouse.   Richard is correct. People who say "the hoi polloi" show not only their ignorance of another language, but the fact that they don't care they are ignorant.

If it makes you feel better to denigrate others for such things, go ahead. Doesn't make you right.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:13 PM

"1948, here we come."

               No, I don't think so. The Democratic candidate won that election.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 01:34 PM

Ah. Goose, gander. Ron, you mean "not every problem is a nail". If every problem were "not a nail", a hammer would never solve a problem.

And before anyone corrects "were"' it is a residual subjunctive.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 10:48 AM

And Rig, you still haven't learned that just because all you have is a hammer, every problem is stlll not a nail.


I in fact just yesterday learned a much more plausible contributor to the MA debacle for Democrats.    In MA virtually the entire government, it seems, is Democrats.   There is now in MA a lot of generalized disgust with their own state government.   They found a way to take it out on somebody--and break the Democratic monopoly.

So, despite the current overreaction--especially the extrapolation to the rest of the US--it seems she may well have lost for reasons specific to MA---in addition, of course to running a classically stupid campaign.

As for breaking up the health care bill:   this is a wretched idea, since it will take a lot more time but produce very little--so not avoid the Democratic Congress' likely fate of being tagged as a "do-nothing Congress".

1948, here we come.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 10:39 AM

Sorry, mouse.   Richard is correct. People who say "the hoi polloi" show not only their ignorance of another language, but the fact that they don't care they are ignorant.

That sort of attitude, especially by Americans, is part of the reason why Americans abroad are so popular.   Hence "ugly American."   

And it makes Americans easy marks for comedy by those who do know more than just English.

It doesn't take much to do a bit of research on a word--or just don't use it.

Shades of Mrs. Malaprop.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:30 AM

The real reason Coakley lost the Senate seat:


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/23/mass_immigration_reforms_in_peril_after_brown_win/

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:09 PM

Nope. "Hoi polloi" is an English word and takes an article. If I were speaking Greek I wouldn't use an English article because, well, I'd be speaking Greek. When I'm speaking English I treat a word the way the English language treats it.

Don't confuse meaning with etymology.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:06 PM

Hoi Polloi. No "The". The "H" is a transliteration of a rough breathing on the classical Greek definite article. So "The Hoi Polloi" really means "The the [populace]".

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:45 PM

Neil, the GOP has filibustered over 100 times in 2009. The hoi polloi apparently don't care.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:21 PM

I think that breaking the bill up is the best way to achieve anything... Take the stuff that the public most favors and *understands* and work up from there... This will also put the Repubs on the defensive... The 2010 elections will be lost by the party who is caught on defense... The Dems can kill two birds with one stone here...

I mean, if you just take something such as what used to be called "Patients Bill of Rights", meaning no cancellations for getting sick, no descrimination for pre-existing conditions, etc. and push that by itself there will be Repubs who will cross the isle because these are populist policies... Right now populist is in so whomever seems the most in tune with this do just fine...

Yeah, sure... In a perfect world we'd love to have single payer universal health insurance... The US is far froma perfect world right now... The Dems have to beat the corporation to the populist message or the corporations will run the Dems over...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Neil D
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:51 PM

It's not simply a matter of supporting Dems over Repubs, they nearly always will. But they could back more progressive Dems over current Congress members in the primaries. Just as the right wing of the GOP has been trying to dump Rinos(Republicans in name only) the liberal base could turn on the Blue Dogs. You make a good argument for party unity but Progressives are feeling like they have given in over and over again on the way to a Senate bill, that compromise has been a one-way route toward the right. Many feel that this bill in its current form, with a private mandate and no public option or any other cost control, has become a gift to the insurance industry. The rise of insurance stocks to record highs since December 24 speaks more loudly than anything they say publicly. I'm not saying there aren't some good in the Senate bill but it's not real reform and progressives are smart enough to know that that yellow stuff ain't lemonade.
    Bottom line is that the house is NOT going to pass the Senate bill verbatum. As Pelosi says the votes just aren't there. I know what your saying about a do-nothing Congress, which is why I have thought all along that Dems should have called the bluff of Repubs and Leiberman, Nelson and Lincoln, forcing them to actually filibuster. Most polls show that people are fed up with Congress as a body and not one party over the other. It might be a roll of the dice but I believe that this approach would have been a public relations win for Dems.
    The latest strategy I'm hearing about is breaking up the bill and passing one increment at a time. I'm afraid I'm not learned enough in Senatorial procedure to know why this method would be immune to filibuster when a comprehensive bill wouldn't. Perhaps someone Mudct wonk could expand on that in a future post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:38 PM

Exactly, Neil.   That's what I stated earlier--the bill has to be accepted by the House exactly as is.

If labor feels ""betrayed", they will have to make the choice in the fall to support Democrats or not.   Their decision will show how self-destructive they are--since if they don't support Democrats they may well get Republicans.

And liberals have to not only realize they cannot get a public option on a silver platter--maybe through the "trigger"--but they have to urge their Representatives to accept the Senate bill with no changes--since as you note that will obviate the need for the bill to return to the Senate.   So no filibustering.

Point is:   after all this time the Democratic Congress has to be able to show something accomplished.    They are well on the way to earning the status of "do-nothing Congress."

And as I said, see 1948.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:17 AM

be nice we all have 1

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:12 AM

I'm having quite a lot of difficulty understanding why anyone would brag about this.

Because, Carol, old LandMine is, was and always willo be an asshole, as is amply demonstrated by his posting history.

How soon folks forget!

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:38 AM

Doug, what mousethief said.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Neil D
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:16 AM

The public option isn't really the main deal breaker any longer.
Lately it's been more about the taxing of so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans and the abortion language. The reason that the "Cadillac plan tax is now such a sticking point is this.
The Senate Healthcare bill was passed on December 24 with it's primary funding a tax on high-price insurance plans, which would have included not only CEO type plans but also insurance plans that Labor unions had negotiated for, often ceding wage increases in return for the security of comprehensive healthcare for their families. This funding mechanism was already a compromise by Senate liberals who preferred to raise funding by a tax increase on wages over $250,000. It was a deal breaker for organized labor so President Obama subsequently met with union leaders and brokered a deal that would: increase the minimum qualifier for family plans but not single plans; increase by five years the grace period before the tax would kick in for union members and excempt add-ons like dental and optometric care. There was no mention of how to redeem the 40% shortfall in funding.
   These changes would have been ammended to the Senate bill by the House before sending it back to the Senate. Now, because of the loss of the of their filibuster-proof majority, the only way the bill could be passed would be for the House to pass the Senate bill unammended, in fact word-for-word as it came out of the Senate on Christmas Eve. This would not even have to be rushed through before Brown is seated because it would never have to go back to the Senate before Obama signed it into law. So the deal Obama netotiated with labor would be negated and labor betrayed. If you don't know why this matters, it's for the same reason Republicans and many conservatise Dems as well, won't go against their corporate sponsors.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:49 PM

Yes making the perfect the enemy of the good has always been a foolishness in US politics, although I'm not sure it's more representative of the Dems than the GOP overall. Although in this case it is definitely the Dems who have made this mistake.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:45 PM

And the "41 Senators" the Republicans claim now is also a red herring--if Olympia Snowe's idea is accepted she has said she will support the Democrats' health bill.

But insisting on a guaranteed "public option" is a deal-breaker.

It's time--past time--for compromise.   Bill D's theory of "don't bother" is all too true--that seems to be the stance of far too many liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:40 PM

The Senate bill is a done deal.   In the House--if the Democrats were united--they wouldn't need Republican support.

Concern about filibustering is a red herring. It's not possible in the House--as I think you know.

As I said, it's up to the House liberals to be ready to compromise.   So far, no sign of it--because their liberal supporters refuse to do so.

And the consequences in the fall will not be pretty.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:35 PM

And would the "block anything Obama does" Republicans have gone along with a half-way bill? Well unless they were lying when they said they were going to block anything, then no, they would not. The Dems should have hollered every time the Republicans stalled. They used the filibuster over 100 times in 2009, a wholly unprecedented record of obstructionism. But does the voting public know about this? The Democrats needed to have spun this as "We worked very hard, overcame our own internal bickering, and couldn't get any cooperation from the Republicans, just as they said would be the case, no matter WHAT we would have tried. It's a bit rich to work to prevent your opponents from doing anything, then blame them for it.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:02 PM

It is still about foolish liberals, in fact--who insist on perfection right from the start. They are the ones who have put pressure on their Representatives not to accept anything which doesn't have a "public option" built in--and who won't even accept the "trigger mechanism" supported by Olympia Snowe--which very likely will result in the public option.

They evidently will not settle for a half-loaf---so may wind up with no bread at all.

And now the latest brainstorm is that a health-care bill can be broken into pieces and parts can be passed that way.

Uh, has it ever occurred to the advocates of this course of action that Congress has already been working on the health care issue since at least July 2009?   The Senate passed its version 24 Dec 2009. Just now long should the Democrats spend in labor to bring forth the series of mice now planned?   And is it not possible that other issues need tackling---if any Democrats expect to be re-elected in the fall?

Just pass the Senate bill as is.    It's there--and should be acceptable--for anybody living in the real world.

And move on.

Liberals who care about Democratic chances in the fall should be telling their Representatives to do just this.

Or--be ready for this Congress to be labelled "do-nothing" Congress.

See 1948, for what happened to the last "do-nothing Congress"--in both Senate and House.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:55 PM

Here's the chart of which you speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:38 PM

Thank you Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:20 PM

Soros backed Bank of America to the tune of half a billion dollars right before they bought the failed Merill Lynch for 12 times too much.

opps

but the fix was in with all TARP $.

George was betting that BOA would buy most of the 300 banks that have failed since and corner the market. But the Merill Lynch deal sucked so bad that BOA was the the clear winner.
All hail Goldman he who has the goldman rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:05 PM

Both of them are about as far from altruism as you can get.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:51 PM

and Gandhi and Pol Pot were also only individuals..... each had some influence.

A word most of us know, but is seldom seen these days is 'altruism'. Do you think Rupert Murdoch or George Soros comes closer to exemplifying that?

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:42 PM

Yeah, it's just that he's only one person that controls the lion's share of the communications media (ex interweb) in this country.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM

Kendall:Last time I heard, Rupert Murdoch is only one person too.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:11 PM

And I doubt if he lost anything. Soros probably made a bundle in all the Wall Street bailouts.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:39 PM

Doug, George Soros is only one person.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:35 PM

Richard Bridge asked:

"Is there no way that the majority in the senate can change its procedures so as to reduce the impact of the malicious (and undemocratic) filibuster?"

Yes, but changing the basic operating rules of the Senate requires a 2/3 majority vote. This is unlikely to happen when one party knows exactly why the other party wants the change.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:56 AM

Rig: GOING to look very ineffective? I would think that anyone of sound mind would look how effective Obama was keeping Virginia and New Jersey in the Demo fold after making several pleading trips to each state on behalf of Democrat gubernatorial candidates and his pleading trip to Mass. to "help" the Democrat candidate "save" the Kennedy seat in the senate would be pretty good evidence that he IS ineffective. Obama done shot his wad and is on a down hill spiral!

Kendall: And George Soros loses.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:18 AM

I don't think the House Democrats have given up on health care reform altogether. They can't do that and expect to get re-elected. And since they want stronger health care reform than what Obama has said he is willing to settle for, I expect they intend to continue to fight for what they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:14 AM

The House Democrats are leaving Obama hung out to dry. If he doesn't get something passed, he's going to look very ineffective.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:08 AM

No, Doug is right... The bill is dead... It's not just about foolish liberals anymore but the reality that alot of Representatives are scared about the upcoming election and self preservation is the highest goal that most aspire to...

So really waht we have is a Congress that has imploded... With the current rules there is really no advantage in being part of the majority because the minority has the power to stop anything it wants...

BTW, I saw a bar-chart the other night showin' how many time the fillibuster has been used going back to the early 90's and it was very tellin'... It stayed purdy much level until after the 2006 elections and then spiked like a shuttle launch... I didn't have enough time to read all the numbers but it appeared like the Repubs have done more fillibustering in the last 2 years than had been done in total before then... Maybe someone has the numbers???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:59 AM

"our family motto is "Drive Them Into The Sea"."

is your family surname by any chance Sherman ?? .. :)


ok


I'm outta here ... this ever spinning thread that has no no definite conclusions.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:53 AM

And if that scenario seems a little uncaring I recently had one poster tell me that my VA benefits were socialism. Some-how when I was drafted into the Corps and spent a year running and doing endless push-ups with heavy stuff on my back, etc, and then being sent to land were the locals shot at you for a $100 bucks a month; or the alternative was four years in prison, I just never saw anyone jump in front of my line...

They are socialism, as is the military itself. Who pays for it? The taxpayers do. Not the market. Any time people pool their money together in the form of taxes to pay for services that are broadly distributed by the government, they are practicing socialism. Our government, military, and your VA benefits are all socialist. Even private insurance has a basically socialist structure right up to the point where the people running the insurance companies skim huge profits off the money that would be better spent providing care.


Now since my youngest daughter just finished her BS in Accounting and her MBA in Finance, and my oldest is buying up forclosures in the Outer Banks, Richmond, and Winston-Salem, we share laughter over "Liars Loans" and our family motto is "Drive Them Into The Sea".

I'm having quite a lot of difficulty understanding why anyone would brag about this.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:52 AM

All or nothing is a stupid philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:11 AM

The current bill is only dead if foolish liberals allow it to die. The fact that Doug says it is dead should tell you that's what he wants.   Do the rest of you also want no bill?

It is classically self-defeating to speak of it in the past tense.

It is a start, not the final goal.

Or perhaps you would like to face the electorate in the fall with no bill. Does the phrase "pitiful helpless giant" ring any bells?

As has been said before, politics is the art of the possible.

Seems to be a very hard lesson for some liberals to learn--and I count myself as a bit left of center--but somebody willing to deal with reality.

House Democrats need to accept the Senate bill, let the president sign it, and move on to other things--especially employment-related issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:42 AM

The real reason the bill failed wasn't related to health care. It was because the administration tipped their hand and announced they were going to tackle immigration reform next, and Cloakley was already on record of favoring amnesty.

                  History will bear this out.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:09 AM

Coakley did not campaign. She took the voters for granted, always a mistake.
I believe that the main reason the dems lost that seat is because of the lies that the right wingnuts spread all over about "Socialized medicine" and other crap designed to kill the bill and keep the fat cats in business. Rupert Murdock wins again.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Claymore
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:00 AM

I have read the above posts and hae noticed several ommissions that seem to destroy the very points that some individuals have attempted to make. "Morons/idiots/the confused etc. voted for a charamatic candidate without understanding the issues"...

Oh! I thought you were talking about Obamas election... and the after-action polls show that the number of registered Republicans remained constant during the race, so these "idiots" are same independants who voted for Obama by 27% just a year ago (Quick, call the Logic Bomb squad).

"The voters want more health coverage:"... But shouldn't someone point out that Massachusetts already has universal health-care coverage, statewide?

Even the Blue dog Democrates were appalled by the "Lousiana Purchase" and the "Nebraska Corn Husker" to get the senators from those states to vote for the bill.

And if the unions were weaker than the Wall St. types, how come they were exempted from the taxes on their Cadillac plans which now add some three thousand dollars to each American car we purchase, and additional taxes on every non-union health care medical bill.

And if we desire those who have outlived the actuarial tables on their Social Security payments to die upon parity, can we now have a killing spree on the folks who receive SSI who have never paid a cent into Social Security. Those folks are mostly mentally or physically disabled so you wouldn't have to lead them much to get a couple of "double taps" off to thin the herd.

And if that scenario seems a little uncaring I recently had one poster tell me that my VA benefits were socialism. Some-how when I was drafted into the Corps and spent a year running and doing endless push-ups with heavy stuff on my back, etc, and then being sent to land were the locals shot at you for a $100 bucks a month; or the alternative was four years in prison, I just never saw anyone jump in front of my line...

Now since my youngest daughter just finished her BS in Accounting and her MBA in Finance, and my oldest is buying up forclosures in the Outer Banks, Richmond, and Winston-Salem, we share laughter over "Liars Loans" and our family motto is "Drive Them Into The Sea".

Now don't let me stop your prattling on... After all if there are mendacious forces beyond your control, ruining your life, what else can you do but howl at the moon... And do remember the old Arab saying that "Mangy dogs bark, but the caravan moves on..."

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:13 AM

I heard a possible approach that I think could be very effective if they were to use it. Someone said they should break down the bill into a bunch of smaller bills, each containing one component of the overall reform that the Democrats are trying to enact. For instance, one bill would just address the problem of people with pre-existing conditions, and another one would deal with the problem of insurance companies dumping sick people from their rolls, etc.

The person who suggested this said, just let them try to filibuster each of the proposals separately. Let them stand there and recite the phone book while people are losing their health insurance because they got sick, or are unable to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Let them show themselves to be the obstructionists that they really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:00 AM

How is the right to filibuster and freedom from guillotine motions enshrined in the US constitution? They are simply matters of procedure. Is there no way that the majority in the senate can change its procedures so as to reduce the impact of the malicious (and undemocratic) filibuster?

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:54 AM

The current bill is dead.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:19 PM

To clarify, in case there is any doubt: House liberals must accept the Senate bill as is--and Mudcatters should be telling them so.   This is the only chance to get a bill through now.

Nobody said this is the last word on health care. But it's a start.

Otherwise you get nothing.

Good luck running on empty

And if you don't think the helplessness of the Democratic majority would be a winning issue for Republicans,   I have a bridge to sell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:13 PM

"...or don't bother"

Sorry, that's not an option.   "Don't bother" appears to mean "Don't push the current Senate bill through"--which is the only chance now to get a bill.

As I said, this declares to the electorate:   "With majorities in the House and Senate and a Democratic president for whom this is a top priority, we are so hopelessly incompetent at governing that we can't get a health care bill through."

"By the way, please re-elect us."


Much as it pains me to agree with Greg F on anything, the idea of voting for Brown as a protest vote against a health care bill which doesn't go far enough is plain stupid.

So you who espouse the "protest against a weak bill" theory are saying that people in Massachusetts who voted for Brown in this protest meant to vote for somebody who guaranteed that there would be no health care bill rather than a flawed bill?

They would vote for an arsonist rather than an imperfect fireman?

This says bad things about Massachusetts liberals:   i.e. that they are complete idiots and possibly unstable-- disciples of the "burn the village down to save it" school.

I would hope you would not rate the liberals in Massachusetts as quite such perfect fools.

I would certainly hope they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:27 PM

DougR, I hope your right about enough Republicans joining in. But Senator Demint really did call for Republicans to make Healthcare Reform Obama's Waterloo. He reiterated it yesterday while crowing about Brown's victory. So far no Republicans have been willing to break ranks. To bad Dems don't have the same party discipline.
The Democrats did have a 60 seat majority if you count Sanders(Democratic Socialist) and Lieberman(Connecticut for Lieberman party) who caucused with them. Lieberman chairs the important Homeland Security Committee in a deal he made with Majority Leader Reed in return for agreeing to Caucus with the Dems. Unfortunately that doesn't mean he had to vote with them. So the Supermajority wasn't all that super. What people don't realize is this. You don't need a 60 seat majority to pass legislation but you do need it to avoid filibuster. I say let them filibuster, nay, force them to filibuster. Bobert and Ron were discussing how to paint the Republicans as obstuctionists, well this is it. When the American people see that spectacle going on they'll have little doubt as to who's standing in the way of progress.