If I lived in Massachusetts, I would have voted for Republican Scott Brown. Voters elected the more liberal candidate. I just read this Wikipedia biography of Coakley. Time after time after time, on dozens of issues, she has sided with the right-wing faction of feminism, and with hard line conservatives. She is far right on every issue except over being gay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Coakley Scott Brown beating Martha Coakley was a victory for Republicans and a defeat for conservatives.
Poor candidates? Yes, they were all democrats. There's a backlash going on in this country right now against the left, caused by the far-left ideology of Obama and the Democrats' insistence on ramming through massive bills like the healthcare bill that the public is against. Liberals are desperate to characterize all of these shocking losses to Republicans as oddities, but they are not.
Well said. It would be interesting to me what people would do at the ballot box if the candidates you voted for didn't have a little (R) or (D) next to their name. Many a liberal just go in and vote for every candidate with a D next to there name, and many a conservative vote for every candidate with a R next to his/her name. I would love for this country to have an election where candidates didn't have to run as a Dem or a Rep, and people would have to be forced to study the candidates, and make a vote on the issues that said candidate stood on. Many republicans are quite liberal, and many democrats and quite conservative, but the media would never let you know that.
That's great and all but if the Republican candidate was as bad as Coakley, the Democrats would still have the seat. Hell I would have voted for brown. It's the same reason I am going to take a long look at Chris Dudley in the Gubernatorial race. On a side note.....Conservative pundits have this weird obsession with the phrase "rammed down our throats". It's gotten to the point that I laugh any time someone uses it.
2 out of 3 Americans were opposed to the healthcare bill, but the liberal wing of the Democratic party passed it anyway. All of the Republicans and 34 of the Democrats voted against the bill, but the liberal wing of the party passed it anyway. That's called "ramming it down our throats."
That is so much revisionist history. Obama ran, as did Clinton btw, promising health care reform. He won overwhelmingly. Elections have consequences. He dis what he said he would do. Even David Brooks says the bill was vanilla, with changes people had talked about for years, and was far from extreme in any measure.
Once again thanks for the laugh.....you seem very comfortable using that phrase. From what I remember it was closer to 50/50 and I am willing to bet by the elections in Nov, that number will go up. Why? because the economy will start to pick up a little more steam and people won't be as jaded. If I were the Republican's right now I would be much more worried about the schism within the party that's threatening to kill any hopes of them making any gains in the next elections.
yup and a good portion of the 50% that were opposed didn't like it because it wasn't single payer (or that ilk) not because they wanted to keep the system the way it was STOMP
Obama said a lot of things during the election, and he hasn't come through on half of them. The fact is, when the public learned what was in his healthcare bill, they were opposed to it by almost 3 to 1. Yet he and the far-left crowd passed it anyway. Even David Brooks? Do you know who David Brooks is? He's a New York Times writer who's far from conservative. They keep him on the staff as a token "conservative" but his heart is not in it, and it shows. It's no surprise at all that he would approve of the healthcare bill. This is the first time in the history of the country that the federal government has been able to force anyone to buy a product that they don't want. When the federal government can tell me I have to buy health insurance or pay a fine, that's "extreme" in my book. If I buy a health care policy for myself, under this plan, I have to purchase coverage for drug and alchohol rehab, even though I'm a non-drinker and non-drug user, and have been all of my life. That's also pretty "extreme" in my opinion. This healthcare bill is going to be incredibly expensive, and it's going to lead to all kinds of graft and corruption. I know too many people who are more than willing to deceive the government to get "compensation" for supposed illnesses, disabilities, etc.
Yeah, that's some schism, all right. So far it's led to big election victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, three of the "bluest" states in the country. I love that kind of schism!!
You are not very good at this reading thing....are you? Or is it by choice that you missed the entire point of sly and my response? For complaining about the political process, the general mindset you have is the what creates this ridicous political atmosphere we have today
Don't pay too much attention to that Troll, his 3rd grade education renders him unable to comprehend complex discussion.
I think one needs to separate Fox News, which is pretty fairminded from the opinion shows on Fox, which are as biased as Rush Limbaugh and the former Air America. IMO, the opinion folks on MSNBC are even worse. They're trying to be more outrageous than even Glenn Beck, which makes them seem even more desperate and silly. I think those commentators, however, provide a real service by offering the opposing point of view. If you just had the comfortable left of center commentary that CNN and The News Hour provide, everyone would generally agree and the increasing leftward drift of our country would continue comfortably.
I have to disagree Maxiep as the Fox News Shows are increasingly using the opinion shows as part of their news. MSNBC definitely has their share crazy people (Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman), but Fox is on a completely different level. I used to despise Bill O'Reilly, but then I discovered Glen Beck and Sean Hannity. Bill actually sounds reasonable when compared to those two blowhards as the producers of those two shows must a bunch of monkey's as their fact checkers. I have absolutely no problem with opposing view points, just when the opposing view just uses scare tactics with absolutely no facts discussing issues (this goes for MSNBC and CNN as well). This is why almost all my news comes from NPR, OPB, BBC, and the Economist. When I have time I also like reading the Times and the WSJ.
I have to disagree as well. I only occasionally watch cable news but I hear a lot of conservative banter on their morning show. I usually read online news and Fox's web site often carries anti-Obama news as their main story. Glenn Beck, Hannity and O'Reily are as far right of center as Jon Stewart and the Daily show are far left of center. 20 years ago, it was just news on tv. It had bias but it was more moderate than what we have today. Now TV news is almost completely fragmented and viewers can surround themselves with programming that falls right in line with their own views.
ppilot and bluefrog, I think you're confusing the Bill O'Reilly's, Sean Hannity's, Greta VanSusterns, Glen Beck's, etc. with the Bret Baier's, Brit Hume's and Chris Wallace's of the network.
BTW, why can't one be "anti-Obama" in a news story and not be objective? I think there were plenty of news stories that called out President Bush that were right on target. Being critical is part of the news.
