Why did Massachusetts elect Scott Brown?
Asked by
w2pow2 (
490
)
January 21st, 2010
Massachusetts is a hardcore democrat state from what I’ve heard.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
76 Answers
The Democrat ran a really bad campaign.
The Republican ran an extremely excellent campaign.
In America, people tend to elect politicians on the basis of how well they campaign. Campaign being the verb form of propaganda.
Also, I blame liberal opposition to health care reform.
It is astonishing that so many liberals would rather 50 million people continue going uninsured than cover them and pay for their coverage with a bill that doesn’t sufficiently “punish” insurance companies. They’ve contributed to the narrative that we should “start over” on health care, that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, and it’s all bullshit and they are just as culpable as the teabagging idiots on the right if health care crashes and burns.
The people of Massachusetts can afford health insurance and don’t care about those who can’t?
@Lightlyseared It’s not that they can afford health insurance, it’s that they’ve already got health care reform at the state level, and they even got the public option.
I live in Massachusetts and most everyone I know, even the left-leaners were fed the fuck up with healthcare reform. In fact I don’t really think anyone I know voted for him for any reason but that. It’s why I voted for him for sure.
@Qingu It is my experience that people often are afraid of change, and will often rather keep a bad system they know, instead of a possible change for the better.
@Qingu For a short time I was one of those people, but then I realized, just because you pass this bill, that doesn’t mean you can’t pass a new one next year. I say take what we can get, cover the uninsured now, and keep working toward something even better.
Well, I think Mass elected Mitt Romney, Republican, at one time. Scott Brown is “liberal” on some issues. And, @Qingu is right the Dem was pretty crappy at PR.
@Lightlyseared Mass already basically has “Obama care” in their state, they don’t need a federal plan like the rest of the country.
@Qingu I want health care for everyone, I want single payer ideally, but short of that, I am not thrilled that we will just be extending benefits that I think suck to begin with to more people. I still want it to pass, but I wish there was better reform than what I see happening. I don’t see how they are going to control costs??
She ran a horrid campaign. It isn’t like the state turned red. Just the Democrats didn’t bother to show up since she didn’t excite them. The turn-out for both parties was really low.
Scott Brown voted for the Massachusetts health care plan, and it was a lot more “liberal” for want of a better word, then the bill(s) now in congress.
Yesterday he was talking about what he’s going to do now, and he essentially said that what he said in the campaign has nothing to do with how he’s going to vote in the Senate. There’s actually a chance that he won’t filibuster on health care. In fact I bet he looks a lot more like a Democrat than Joe Lieberman does.
@Anon_Jihad, on other threads you demonstrably don’t even know what is in the health bill. How on earth could you have been fed up with something you’re completely ignorant about?
@JLeslie, the public option’s function was basically to control costs. And it would have. Oh well. That was a minor part of the bill. And the people who can’t afford coverage, along with the people who get denied insurance for immoral reasons, now get covered, via subsidies and regulation. I think that’s pretty damn thrilling, despite the fact that it could be better.
@Snarp :: Lieberman is a attention whore. This is actually pretty good since it kinda neuters him. Now the Democrats can tell him to climb a wall of dicks since he isn’t the swing vote anymore.
@johnpowell, he’s still a swing vote if they can swing Snowe or the new guy.
@Qingu I am happy about getting rid of the pre-existing clauses, and some of the other things you sited. Still, I am very dissappointed overall. I thnk everyone should have to join in, but then Obama said he would not force that even during the primaries. Also, I hear Schwartenegger talking to Cali congressman that California gets screwed with this bill, having to pay for Nebreska, or something like that? I don’t blame him for calling foul. Not to mention that HATE that insurance is attached to work.
I hate the insurance companies as well. But the fact of the matter is they have broken no laws. They have operated exactly as you would expect profit-seeking entities to operate in the legal and economic framework our government has provided them with.
The desire to punish them, for doing nothing legally or economically wrong, should not supersede the desire to help 50 million Americans afford and gain access to the medical care they need.
The Nebraska pork is so little money in the grand scheme of things that I can’t really muster up any outrage about it. My capacity for hating Ben Nelson is already at maximum.
I for one don’t want to punish insurance companies, and I don’t think the rest of the left does either. It’s just that we want to ultimately make them obsolete because they are a terrible way to handle health care.
@Qingu I am not looking to punish the insurance companies. What I really want is to get rid of them, but that is a different story that is unrealistic. I want them to stop interfering in my medical care, and I don’t want services and medicine to cost a different amount depending on my insurance company. I think that is bullshit.
@johnpowell Ugh. I actually defend the companies a little for advertising, because I think so many doctors suck, and people don’t know what medicines are out there to help them. But, a lot of that money is advertising aimed at doctors I bet. I wonder if that ad money includes taking doctors on vacations, and brining in lunch for the staff?
@Snarp and @JLeslie, I don’t think it’s feasible to get rid of the insurance companies in the near or mid-term.
But I also think your complaints can be dealt with with strong regulation. It’s a similar problem with the banks. The problem with the banks isn’t necessarily that they are private (let alone that they exist) the problem is they are laxly regulated and so come up with ingenious ways to maximize profits at the expense of not fucking us over.
@Qingu I agree, I know we can’t get rid of them. I’m pretty sure legally the banks should not have been able to do what they did, but no one inforced the rules.
This election was not about health insurance per se, although it did enter the equation. This election was simply the first where people are indicating that they have had it with the democrats’ spend and tax approach to government, and with the never-ending arrogation of more and more power in the hands of Washington politicians. Stick around. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
• democrats’ spend and tax approach to government,
I’m familiar with this right-wing slogan but could you please tell us what on earth you’re talking about?
The TARP bailouts, which Bush enacted?
The stimulus bill, half of which was tax cuts?
• and with the never-ending arrogation of more and more power in the hands of Washington politicians
Again, I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. Are you sure you’re not thinking of Bush and his administration’s unprecendented expansion of executive power?
Do you even know what the words you are writing mean?
What this election was about is that Americans want miracle cures and they didn’t get one. People vote the economy, and when the economy is bad, incumbents fair poorly, especially when the challengers are able to spin the economic problems as the incumbents fault, accurately or not.
@johnpowell
Money doesn’t translate directly into results, you know, that’s a common misconception; Law of Diminishing Returns and all. Add that to the “spend money to make money” principle, (earn money to have money to attract good R&D people to produce better products to earn money to have money to keep good R&D people to produce better products…) and your argument starts to look a bit shaky.
@oratio
I’d say that the present system isn’t too shabby. But you’re right, people are fearful of changing the system for fear that it’ll be even worse. Worse is the general impression that I got from the healthcare bill. If they were to scrap the whole thing and start over, they’d have a better shot.
I still think that doing something about the malpractice lawsuits would fix a lot of the costs of modern medicine.
@Nullo I don’t know. I don’t have any personal experience of your system, as I am not american. Maybe you are right.
However, it looks like the US health care is the most expensive in the world, yet ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance according the the WHO and thats with a big part of the US without coverage.
It just seems to me that the system is in dire need of change.
@Nullo, you said, If they were to scrap the whole thing and start over, they’d have a better shot.
Concern trolling.
@Qingu
No need to be insulting.
I have just as much against the Republicans as I do against the Democrats. You would know this if you had read a few of my other responses to political questions. The American public in general, and the middle class in particular, are fed up with the policies of BOTH major political parties. HOWEVER, this question was about the election in Massachusetts, which was a bellweather if ever there was one: a conservative Republican winning the Senate seat of one of the most liberal icons in the US Senate for many years.
How is it insulting? Nullo, from what I gather, is a Republican. It is a textbook example of concern trolling.
@Qingu
“Do you even know what the words you are writing mean?” is insulting.
@Qingu
Hardly. I am of two minds concerning healthcare reform, and every now and then I see if I can reconcile the two.
I’m a big fan of the Italian healthcare system. Their buildings and technology were antiquated and you had to bring your own silverware and toilet paper for a prolonged stay, but their triage was the best and they could take and process an x-ray and send it and you up to the appropriate doctor in the space of two hours. When my sister fell through a window and got glass stuck in her back, we walked her to the nearby hospital and she was done in half an hour, with the wound cleaned and stitched up, carrying the necessary medication.
I do not believe that the so-called healthcare reform bill could create such a system, and I do not like the idea of butchering our existing economy to fund such a monster.
My approach to the political spectrum is broader than yours, apparently. I am not a Republican, neither am I a Democrat, nor am I a Libertarian or any of those other little parties that always run and never get anywhere. I am registered as a non-partisan voter, the affiliation that best allows me to embrace my socially-conservative leanings, and vote -with clear conscience! – for the candidate that I feel is best suited to the job.
Fair enough, I apologize for being insulting. I hope you are done being insulted and will respond to my points. You didn’t in your last post.
@CaptainHarley I for one just don’t understand why there are all these people attacking Democrats lately and saying they have just as much against republicans, most of whom it seems identify as Libertarians of some sort, yet they support republicans at the ballot box and seemed awfully quiet during the very anti-libertarian Bush administration (not to assume that you personally were). Why is it that Libertarians look at the parties and think Republicans are the lesser of two evils? We all know that neither party is remotely Libertarian or Socialist. It seems to me the choice is between Republicans who support corporate freedom but care nothing for the rights of real individuals and Democrats who actually support the civil liberties of individuals but might restrict the rights of corporations. Why is it that Libertarians come down on the Republican side when that suggests that corporate freedom is more important than individual freedom? Is it really just that the Republicans have better marketing?
I guess that’s a whole other question for it’s own thread.
@Qingu
And I won’t this time, either; I’ve spent far too much time lallygagging today as it is. Mayhaps this evening.
@Nullo, Italy has nationalized health care. Is that what you’re saying you’d support?
@Snarp
Not being a Libertarian, I have no idea!
The dems thought that it was all locked up and in their primary nominated a candidate who was smart, qualified, had a great track record and held the correct positions. Unfortunately she was dry as day old un-buttered toast. Again, assuming it was locked up, she didn’t work the race.
The repubs ran an attractive (ok, the guy is Hot), charismatic candidate who played up his charm, his man of the people and good ole boy persona, who took every opportunity to press the flesh and make an appearance. He played down his record, in many cases lying about his past.
In the end, it was as if the dems tried to elect the nerdy girl captain of the debate team, and the repubs ran the handsome captain of the football team.
I heard someone on the radio today describe him as a male Sarah Palin. I agree. The odd thing is, the guy on the radio thought it was a compliment.
@Qingu
I might, depending on the particulars.
Now, what were these points that I was ignoring? I can’t find any such addressed to me.
@Nullo, that was to CaptainHarley.
So when you said you wanted to “start from scratch” with health care, you’d like to see something more like single-payer government run-health care? Is that what you meant?
@Qingu
As I said, I am of two minds concerning the matter, and I try to reconcile them from time to time. I do not think highly of big government, you see, and government involvement in healthcare couldn’t be anything else. But I do think that the system needs an overhaul; just waiting room times by themselves are nothing short of ridiculous and it doesn’t cost as much to run an MRI as they charge for it and medical testing only costs what it does because they run the things ten times instead of three for accuracy.
@Rude_Bear
“He played down his record, in many cases lying about his past.” Care to elaborate on this?
Because we think he’s cute! Dahh!
Is there any defense against the 300 million dollar Louisianan bribe accusation?
@CaptainHarley : He was running as an“Independent voice”... but his record showed him voting along party lines 90% of the time. He personally wrote a bill that, had it past, would have given Hospitals, Emergency room personnel, and pharmacists the right to refuse to prescribe or dispense the morning after contraceptive pill to the victims of rape, based on their religious beliefs. In one debate he all but denied this, even though it is part of legislative records. Lastly, in his commercials he constantly ran down the laundry list of lies the repubs have been using against the Health Care reform bill…. Health Care Reform: Love it or hate it, but for gawd sake, be honest about it.
I live in NH, which shares a lot of Massachusetts’ media market…. I’ve heard more about this race than I really wanted to.
And lastly. I really dislike his “Good ole boy I drive a pick up truck persona”. It’s phony and condescending. Yeah. He drives a pick up truck, but he’s also a millionaire.
@Rude_Bear Does that mean that there’s no defense against the 300 million dollar Louisianan bribe accusation?
@w2pow2 : I don’t think the health care bill really had much to do with the decision. The Health Care issue was manipulated and quoted in campaign ads, but I don’t think it did anything to change the outcome. MA has a health care bill that is more “liberal” than the one being proposed (and Brown voted FOR IT by the way).
Brown ran a good campaign… he did the right things and looked and sounded good doing it. She did a piss poor job.
Someone once said all politics is local.
@w2pow2 What exactly is the 300 million dollar Louisiana bribe accusation, and what does it have to do with Scott Brown? All I seem to find about it are non-sequitur blog comments. And to the point, when there is an accusation you don’t ask if there is a defense against it, you ask if there is any evidence for it first. Otherwise you find yourself asking why Glenn Beck won’t answer questions about the accusations that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
@Rude_Bear
“He personally wrote a bill that, had it past, would have given Hospitals, Emergency room personnel, and pharmacists the right to refuse to prescribe or dispense the morning after contraceptive pill to [people, including] the victims of rape, based on their religious beliefs.”
Somehow, I can’t see this as a bad thing. Imagine if the law required you to do something that you found morally reprehensible.
The pro-life bunch often equates abortion to the Holocaust: millions snuffed out for no particularly good reason; to such people, forcing them to assist with abortion or the dispensing of the morning-after pill would be as cruel as making them operate the gas chambers in Auschwitz.
1.) Scott Brown ran a masterful campaign. He sold himself and his ideas. He portrayed himself as blue collar, worked every day of the campaign in state meeting voters at public places (i.e., civic events, sporting events). He did not seek help from people in DC.
2.) Martha Coakley ran an abomidable campaign. She stood for nothing. She had no ideas, except “I stand for what he doesn’t.” She sought DC help yet claimed to be a political outsider. She asked the Kennedys for help, and when she did, Patrick referred to her as Marsha Coakley (he truly is an American idiot, and the people of RI deserve him).
3.) Political arrogance and a sense of “Democrat” entitlement was whooshed away, thankfully.
4.) The Q-Tips are dying off.
5.) Barack Obama seems to have sold America a bill of goods, at least to this point. We, the voters of the Commonwealth, voted for Deval Patrick (I didn’t, they did), and then his clone, Barack Obama. In my opinion, the Brown campaign was eloquent and effective in selling the message “if there is ANY doubt, vote for me…what do you have to lose?”
6.) The Massachusetts political machine has run its course and voters are seeing the damage of the one party system.
7.) One candidate inspired people, ran a clean campaign, and hit all the right buttons. The other inspired no one and was an abject, dismal failure.
8.) The unions turned their backs on the Democrats to an extent. Ms. Coakley’s husband is a retired Cambridge policeman, and the Cambridge police union endorsed Mr. Brown. You cannot actively give rights to illegal aliens and help them take American jobs and expect the unions, not matter how ardent, to back you. The Teachers’ Union on the other hand, will, because the more aliens there are to teach, the more jobs will be required.
9.) People who truly believe in a cause will always make time to get out and vote. People who are pedestrian may or may not. Almost assuredly, everyone who wanted Mr. Brown to win GOT OUT AND VOTED. If there was actually anyone who wanted Ms. Coakly to win, they may be inclined to say “she’s a Democrat, there’s nothing to worry about.” There was no reason to think otherwise. She did have a double digit poll lead just two weeks before the election.
10.) They voted for the better man, and the best man won. That is not a sexist use of the word “man”, just a use of the expression.
@CaptainHarley Yes, he ran as an independent voice, but he did not run as an Independent. Of course he voted the party line 90% of the time, but I am willing to bet that 10% non-party line voting dwarfs the percentage of most Democrats. As for your statement about the bill he wrote, he wrote an amendment to a bill. It sounds to me like a caveat was being created so a Catholic hospital would not be coerced into violating the law or its own moral stance.
I am neither a Catholic nor a woman, and I have no stake in this amendment. I am simply stating when the words are looked at logically, he did not take a woman’s right away to do anything. He simply offered the hospitals and their staffs the right to act in a way that was in keeping with their beliefs.
Brown Wanted to Provide Religious Exemption to Bill Allowing Doctors to Distribute Emergency Contraceptives to Rape Victims. During debate on a 2005 bill to allow doctors to dispense emergency contraceptives to rape victims, Brown sponsored an amendment to the bill allowing hospital personnel to be exempted on religious grounds from a requirement to inform victims of the availability of the morning-after pill, and dispense it to those who request it. Brown’s amendment was rejected and he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. [Senate, No. 2073, 6/16/05; Telegram & Gazette, 6/17/05]
@Nullo : I suspect if I found something morally reprehensible I wouldn’t pursue a career that could require me to do so. Granted I’m not saying these people should give up medicine, but perhaps working in a big city hospital is not the place for them…. something about avoiding the near occasion of sin. Perhaps in a private practice. No one is requiring them to work in this field of medicine, and surely they knew about the possibility when they took the job.
This would be on par with , where I an Orthodox Jew, I wouldn’t choose to work as a swine herder… Or as a Jehovah’s Witness, I wouldn’t go to work at the blood bank…. A Hindu, I wouldn’t work at a meat processing plant….. And, given that I was stupid enough to pursue these careers, I wouldn’t ask the Government to change the rules to accommodate me.
If one adjusts, amends, forms the law system according to Christian beliefs, how is that different than Sharia?
@birdland33 : I disagree that he ran a clean campaign. His daughters in their radio commercial making unsubstantiated accusations? Please. Repeating the laundry list of republican lies about the Health Reform Bill? Please.
He sold himself and his ideas? He lied, claimed to be a moderate independent when he’s a lock step Republican.
The Better man won? Doubtful,
@Rude_Bear are you asking or stating?
His daughters in their radio commercial making unsubstantiated accusations?
Repeating the laundry list of republican lies about the Health Reform Bill?
What exactly were the unsubstantiated accusations? I heard a lot of radio spots, but I may have missed that one. If you could give me the specific spot so I could hear it, I would be more than happy to defer to your position as necessary.
@birdland33 I am stating. His campaign, though not as dirty as many, was far from clean.
His daughters did a radio commercial where they, under the guise of defending their daddy, attacked his opponent left and right, accusing her of lying about their father and spreading even more lies about her. It was a classic spot because they could make their attack, but Coakley couldn’t rebut it without “attacking” his daughters.
@Rude_Bear
So you’re saying that it’s a doctor’s duty – oaths about doing no harm notwithstanding – to kill the unwanted unborn if he is called upon to do so? That our ethics ought to bow to the rule of law? That our feelings and opinions and beliefs as individuals do not matter because some crazy woman wants to be without child?
Doctors weren’t always required to dish out “emergency contraceptives” if told to do so, you know. That is a recent development; somebody else meddled in precisely the way you’re saying that a doctor ought not to: in order to accommodate themselves.
By your logic, there ought not to have been a “conscientious objector” option for anything, and Jehovah’s Witnesses ought to be made to say the Pledge of Allegiance along with the rest of the classroom.
Laws determine what is legal, not what is right.
I’m going to come back to this later, when I’m more alert, and see whether I need to have another go at this or not.
@oratio
It would be different in all the ways that Christianity is different from Islam. Just because Sharia sucks doesn’t mean that all faith-based legal systems suck.
It would seem that one amends laws as the will and beliefs of the constituent peoples shift. If the people desire a shift of the legal system towards more Christian values, it’s a valid, democratic thing, isn’t it?
@Nullo No. It would be against the constitution of the U.S. Furthermore it would serve to oppress minorities as non-Christians and those who don’t fit the beliefs, e.g. homosexuals. Democracy had black people put down in South Africa, and put the National Socialists in power in 1930’s Germany. Democracy don’t always get it right. Christian Sharia is not better.
@Nullo : No. I am saying that a reasonable person would know that by entering this field of medicine, they may at some point be called upon to do do this. The procedure is legal, and in the case of rape, a perfectly reasonable request. If their religious beliefs prevent them from doing this, they are free to choose another field of medicine. No one is forcing them to do anything. There is no need for the law. It is unreasonable to put the religious beliefs of a group or individual (who have options) above the medical and mental well being of another group or individual, and the proposed law would do just that.
@oratio
I got my answer looking at how legislation changed in this country. For instance, back in the day, it was culturally acceptable – if not universally approved – for white people to own black people. Then it became uncool, and the laws changed to reflect that. Then it became uncool for white people to have more rights and privileges than black people, and the laws changed to reflect that.
If our culture suddenly started shifting back to its Christian origins, the laws would most likely shift with it. It is written, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,” which is to say that Congress cannot create and enforce a national religion a la Church of England. One’s principles may come from religion, but they are not an ecclesiastic doctrine.
@Rude_Bear
I got the impression that the proposed law would permit morally-opposed doctors and pharmacists from having to participate in the massacre of innocents. Is that so unreasonable? If they’re hell-bent on getting their “emergency contraceptives,” then can’t they just find another doctor? There are plenty that have fewer scruples.
@Nullo I read the Bill of Rights and the Wall of Separation like that. Christian law will conflict with not only the constitution, but with with the intentions of the founding fathers. USA was not founded on Christian beliefs and values. Where those values may overlap with common law, it doesn’t mean it’s a Christian law. The very essence of Free Exercise is secular law. Interpretations of the first amendment seem to show that there are restrictions on religion where religious beliefs do not comply with secular law.
The law cannot be fair with religious beliefs and dogma. Wasn’t this what the puritans left england for?
@Nullo : Again, the Doctors, nurses, et al. Don’t have to do anything. There is No law requiring them to do anything, and they have the option of walking away and allowing someone else to treat the patient.
Personally, my concern would be with the woman who had just been raped, rather than the medical professional working in a public hospital insisting that the laws be changed to meet their personal beliefs. But hey, that’s just me.
“If our culture suddenly started shifting back to its Christian origins…” Ah. Much becomes clear.
In the case of rape I want at minimum the doctor to be required to inform the patient they have the option of a pill that will help ensure she does not become pregnant. If that doctor is not willing to prescribe it she can ask for it from a differnt doctor. There was a case in the news of a girl not being given such medication, and wound up pregnant. She was very upset because morally she had no problem with the idea of the morning after pill, but did have a problem with abortion weeks into a pregnancy. She felt she should have been informed of her options.
Many times I do come down on the law of the land trumps religion. I am very much a freedom of religion, separation of church and state person, but you don’t get to practice your religion when it interferes with other peoples rights to practice theirs, it cannot interfere with anothers rights, and you don’t get to cause harm in the name of religion like killing your wife because she looked at another man. There are limits. Logic and common sense matter. Women have a right to abortion in this country, it is still the law. The government cannot require or order a man or woman to support another life with their own body systems, not pregnancy, not giving blood, not donating an organ. We all, both genders, should have domain over our bodies.
@w2pow2
What, somebody trip over the teleprompter cord? That speech is painful.
It’s surprising, that’s for sure. I just want everyone to learn a lesson from this. I don’t want all this trouble to be for nothing.
Well actually the teleprompter jokes made of President Obama have some merit. This president is attached to his teleprompter a little more than usual.
This is an unedited picture of President Obama using a teleprompter at a 10 person conference meeting!
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjUwNmUwMzBmNWQ0MmY1MWVkNzVmYmM1MDUwYzkyZWM=
But lets just clarify that this does not say anything about his overall leadership. And it’s understandable considering that President Obama is new to politics.
I have been talking about how Obama wasn’t very good in interviews, but good at giving a speech, for over two years. People were saying what a great speaker he was, articulate (which I do not thing is an insult) etc., and I kept saying, “he stutters his words out as he begins to answer many times, what are they talking about?”
@Snarp
Yeah, and you and some millions of others lyao’d at Bush’s slips for nine solid years.
This one is the best one so far.
Back when I was taking Public Speaking 101, we were allowed a single 3×5 card to hold our main talking points, and we did pretty dang well.
Maybe Barry’s real problem is his posse of speechwriters; you do a better job of remembering what you’re going to say when you’ve written it yourself.
Again I think we need to be fair to Mr. President. He can and has written some of his own speeches.
The real klutz here is Joe Biden! If they let him speak enough, he’ll surpass President Bush in clumsiness!
Here’s a good site for a fair analysis of the president- http://www.thebarackobamawatch.com/
I don’t think there is anything wrong wih using a teleprompter. I don’t get the big problem? And, I would guess that Obama goes over the speeched and make changes before delivering them, like most presidents. It appears to me his speeches have some very deliberate messages, and I think they come from him, even if the wording may be put together by several writers. The spirit of the speech, the intention, the meaning, the content, is what is most important.
Is there no defense for President Obama’s statement?
I don’t think being honest requires a defense.
Well actually I am quite angry that this was a fraction of a fraction of a footnote in one of President Obama’s speeches. An honest man would have made an entire speech about it and humbly apologized for all the prejudice he flung at the right-wingers for having the nerve to say the exact same thing.
I mean, this is huge! It deserves more than a couple of words.
I’m afraid this demonstrates a bit of a character flaw in our President.
But I give him credit for what he did do. At least he wasn’t hush hush about it.
Again, if we as a whole do not learn from this, then all this trouble would be for naught.
@w2pow2 It’s only a big deal if you know for certain exactly what was in the bill when, or if the bill had passed. Keep in mind that Obama didn’t write this bill, he just said what he wanted in a bill and that he wanted it fast. This was a bill that was still being actively amended in the reconciliation process, and while there’s nothing wrong with pointing out real flaws in the bill, there is something wrong with claiming that Obama is responsible for every detail of a bill that hasn’t reached his desk yet. The right was making these claims about healthcare before a bill was even written, much less this one. That’s the difference – Obama talked about a technical problem that may have arisen in an actual version of the bill under consideration, the Republicans made up problems in a non existent bill and claimed those problems were the actual goals of the Obama administration. They put the cart before the horse.
Answer this question 
