Ted Kennedy to be succeeded by a toolbag

[Sir Stewart]

This is taken from an article on Salon, in reference to why folks, many of them independents, voted for Brown:

 

"We watched what was happening in Washington and just saw this insane spending," Charlotte Mastroianni, a retired nurse who attended the Brown party with her husband, explained.

 

Mastroianni described herself as an independent voter, but said she hadn't been involved in politics for 30 years. But last year, she and her husband joined Glen Beck's 9/12 Project, traveling to Washington for the September rally.

 

"They're just remarkable, remarkable people. Wonderful people," Mastroianni said of her fellow 9/12 participants. "But unfortunately it got lousy press because of some crazies."

 

When they saw polls showing a surprisingly close race in Massachusetts three weeks ago, Mastroianni said, she and her husband drove to Wrentham -- Brown's hometown -- and volunteered to do phone banking at his office.

 

Heavy spending by Washington, President Obama's healthcare push, and the administration's decision to try some accused terrorists in civilian court were -- by far -- the issues cited most frequently by the Brown crowd.

 

"He's going to keep my country safe for my children," Doherty, the machine operator with the hard hat, said.

 

"We don't want socialism," Mastroianni said. "We don't want to be Europe. The politicians want to, but we don't. It's a nice place to visit. But we don't want to be them."

 

http://salon.com/new...9/coakley_brown

 

These sentiments are so divorced from reality, that they may as well be talking about retaking the country from the hands (suckers?) of space aliens. The Beck/Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity-ization of this country is complete. We’re no longer voting according to real issues and events, no, we’re voting based on Roger Ailes right-wing fever dreams and outright bullshit.

 

Meh. This rant is just as useless and rigid as anything coming from the far right. We've gotten to the point of "if you don't vote for the same candidate I do, then you're a crazy person and everything you do and say and wear and believe in is outright and automatically crazy." I'm done with that line of thought.

[Oil Can Boyd]

This was perhaps the strangest part of his acceptance speech:

 

"As always, I rely on Gail's love and support, and that of our two lovely daughters. So I want to thank Ayla and Arianna for their help as well. And just in case anyone who's watching throughout the country they're both available. No, no. No. Only kidding, only kidding. Only kidding, only kidding. Arianna... Arianna's, definitely not available. But Ayla is. This is Arianna. This is Ayla. I can see I'm going to get in trouble when I get home."

[Guest Speed Racer]

Have we ever really voted according to issues? I mean, actual issues - not what the media and the campaigns create to be issues? I think this harkening back to a day when we voted on the "real issues and events" is very Pollyanna.

[Sir Stewart]

This was perhaps the strangest part of his acceptance speech:

 

"As always, I rely on Gail's love and support, and that of our two lovely daughters. So I want to thank Ayla and Arianna for their help as well. And just in case anyone who's watching throughout the country they're both available. No, no. No. Only kidding, only kidding. Only kidding, only kidding. Arianna... Arianna's, definitely not available. But Ayla is. This is Arianna. This is Ayla. I can see I'm going to get in trouble when I get home."

 

Very weird, that. The crowd was actually booing him, too. And his wife said "stop that!"

[Good Old Neon]

Meh. This rant is just as useless and rigid as anything coming from the far right. We've gotten to the point of "if you don't vote for the same candidate I do, then you're a crazy person and everything you do and say and wear and believe in is outright and automatically crazy." I'm done with that line of thought.

 

When the reason you give for voting for a given candidate, is that you want to take the country back from the hands of communists, when, in fact, it was never even remotely close to being controlled by communists, something has gone dreadfully wrong. I can understand being opposed to the health care bill for philosophical or fiscal reasons, but when you start voting based on what the Glenn Beck’s of this world have to say, well, again, something is really wrong. It’s like saying you oppose abortion because they make little zombie soldiers out of the aborted fetuses – it’s fucking crazy.

 

The reasons being given are eerily similar to the sorts of blatantly dishonest garbage that has been put out there by the right.

[Sir Stewart]

When the reason you give for voting for a given candidate, is that you want to take the country back from the hands of communists, when, in fact, it was never even remotely close to being controlled by communists, something has gone dreadfully wrong. I can understand being opposed to the health care bill for philosophical or fiscal reasons, but when you start voting based on what the Glenn Beck’s of this world have to say, well, again, something is really wrong. It’s like saying you oppose abortion because they make little zombie soldiers out of the aborted fetuses – it’s fucking crazy.

 

The reasons being given are eerily similar to the sorts of blatantly dishonest garbage that has been put out there by the right.

 

People are fired up and for a lack of a better term they're labeling Obama's tactics communism. Even if their terms are misleading, the sentiments are real. It's not crazy. It's reactionary maybe, and poorly thought out, but there's a palpable feeling among these voters they're doing 'something'. Reminds me how I felt a year ago about Obama. We all want to grab onto something in the public sphere that speaks to us. It's not crazy, it's human.

[Good Old Neon]

People are fired up and for a lack of a better term they're labeling Obama's tactics communism. Even if their terms are misleading, the sentiments are real. It's not crazy. It's reactionary maybe, and poorly thought out, but there's a palpable feeling among these voters they're doing 'something'. Reminds me how I felt a year ago about Obama. We all want to grab onto something in the public sphere that speaks to us. It's not crazy, it's human.

 

I’m not so sure – the “c” word, or the even more popular, “s” word, didn’t enter popular thought spontaneously, it was intentionally planted by the right and its spokesmen and women. I understand and share the nation’s frustration, but if we’re going to find a way out of this mess, we have to deal with hard cold facts, and not an agenda based on almost entirely on all fear, all the time. Voting is important, but what’s even more important, is being an educated voter – learning how to filter out the spin from both parties and the media is vital to being a responsible and informed citizen/adult - it admittedly takes a lot of hard work and effort, but if folks aren’t willing to take the time, perhaps it would be best if they just stayed home on election day.

[Sir Stewart]

I’m not so sure – the “c” word, or the even more popular, “s” word, didn’t enter popular thought spontaneously, it was intentionally planted by the right and its spokesmen and women. I understand and share the nation’s frustration, but if we’re going to find a way out of this mess, we have to deal with hard cold facts, and not an agenda based on almost entirely on all fear, all the time. Voting is important, but what’s even more important, is being an educated voter – learning how to filter out the spin from both parties and the media is vital to being a responsible and informed citizen/adult - it admittedly takes a lot of hard work and effort, but if folks aren’t willing to take the time, perhaps it would be best if they just stayed home on election day.

 

You're not helping your case by assuming the people who vote Republican are automatically uneducated voters.

This we can agree on: No one likes the health care bill as it stands. Right? So, following that, many people in Massachusetts saw a direct line from a vote for Scott Brown to a stop to the bill's success. What's uneducated about that?

[Guest Speed Racer]

I’m not so sure – the “c” word, or the even more popular, “s” word, didn’t enter popular thought spontaneously, it was intentionally planted by the right and its spokesmen and women.

 

So what? Do you think that label is keeping people from referring to the "cold hard facts"? Labels keep things organized, and organized political movements facilitate change a lot better than a bunch of people feeling a vague discontent (or vague energy). Remember how Obama voters rallied around "change"? What the hell does that mean? Eh, worked for us.

 

(As a related side point, how many labels we use ever accurately describe what these people are actually for? Gay and lesbian are both colloquial terms, neither of which actually bear the true definiton of their etymology, and yet we don't really talk about the great "homosexual rights movement," nor do we scorn them for using inaccurate labels. Fundamentalists generally always misread parts of the Bible, but we don't refer to them as Selectivists.)

 

Being a voter is a right; being an educated voter is a choice. While I don't agree with people's choices (whether it's their vote or whether they educate themselves on positions before they vote), I frankly like it that way a lot more than I like the alternative.

[mountain bed]

Since it appears that Massachusettes voters took issue with HCR for the whole country (being a 'donor' state) I would be very curious to hear how residents feel about the system they have set up there.

 

SS, Oil Can...feel free to offer your opinions.

[ikol]

I’m not so sure – the “c” word, or the even more popular, “s” word, didn’t enter popular thought spontaneously, it was intentionally planted by the right and its spokesmen and women. I understand and share the nation’s frustration, but if we’re going to find a way out of this mess, we have to deal with hard cold facts, and not an agenda based on almost entirely on all fear, all the time. Voting is important, but what’s even more important, is being an educated voter – learning how to filter out the spin from both parties and the media is vital to being a responsible and informed citizen/adult - it admittedly takes a lot of hard work and effort, but if folks aren’t willing to take the time, perhaps it would be best if they just stayed home on election day.

 

OK, but further government takeover of healthcare is a step in the direction of socialism. You may agree with that step -- and there are many well-intentioned, smart people on this board that have no problem with socialism -- but it is not inaccurate to say that the Democrats' healthcare reform proposals are socialist-leaning. Maybe the government is not explicitly owning the means of production as would be required for a strict definition of socialism, but controlling the way that healthcare is paid for has the same end result. Do you think that a family practice doctor that can barely cover his overhead because Medicare has not increased reimbursements for a decade is not de facto owned by the government? That, by the way, is the main reason that you have to wait hours to see your doctor and then only get 15 minutes with him/her: the only way that they can cover their overhead in the face of low reimbursements is to increase patient volume to ridiculous levels.

[MattZ]

OK, but further government takeover of healthcare is a step in the direction of socialism. You may agree with that step -- and there are many well-intentioned, smart people on this board that have no problem with socialism -- but it is not inaccurate to say that the Democrats' healthcare reform proposals are socialist-leaning. Maybe the government is not explicitly owning the means of production as would be required for a strict definition of socialism, but controlling the way that healthcare is paid for has the same end result.

 

Only in America is a taxpayer funded Wall Street bailout and a health care bill without a public option and windfall profits for insurance companies, considered socialism. Since when is it socialism to take from everyone to give to the wealthy?

[calvino]

Since it appears that Massachusettes voters took issue with HCR for the whole country (being a 'donor' state) I would be very curious to hear how residents feel about the system they have set up there.

 

SS, Oil Can...feel free to offer your opinions.

 

Also I'm curious to know if the people of MA voted for health care (a referendum) or did it happen on the floor at the state Senate/House?

[Guest Speed Racer]

OK, but further government takeover of healthcare is a step in the direction of socialism. You may agree with that step -- and there are many well-intentioned, smart people on this board that have no problem with socialism -- but it is not inaccurate to say that the Democrats' healthcare reform proposals are socialist-leaning.

 

I think GON's beef is that the evil-doers he loathes are equating Obama with Socialism, not socialism.

 

Do you think that a family practice doctor that can barely cover his overhead because Medicare has not increased reimbursements for a decade is not de facto owned by the government? That, by the way, is the main reason that you have to wait hours to see your doctor and then only get 15 minutes with him/her: the only way that they can cover their overhead in the face of low reimbursements is to increase patient volume to ridiculous levels.

 

And that, by the way, is the main reason we need healthcare reform. What you have described here is Socialism, the big-S version that was instituted in regimes where people didn't get to vote; socialism is the one where people in Switzerland and Canada get to spend QT with their doctor when they need it.

[Good Old Neon]

So what? Do you think that label is keeping people from referring to the "cold hard facts"? Labels keep things organized, and organized political movements facilitate change a lot better than a bunch of people feeling a vague discontent (or vague energy). Remember how Obama voters rallied around "change"? What the hell does that mean? Eh, worked for us.

 

For the same reason that when attempting to correct a problem, we usually try to find its root cause. When my car breaks down, in order to fix it, I have to know the problem. If I bring it to the garage, and my mechanic takes a look and says, yep, it’s the starter, we can fix that – however, if he looks at it and says, looks like gremlins and ghosts have put a hex on your engine, well, it will never get fixed.

 

I see a similar situation here, to simply matters, health care is broken, we can disagree on the extent of its brokenness, but for many folks, its broken - on one side, we have folks attempting to do something about it – like most bills, the current one is not perfect – but it’s a start. Medicade was not particularly popular in its day, and it certainly isn’t perfect, but I think most people agree that it serves a valuable and vital purpose. On the other hand, we have those who oppose the health care bill, and rather than oppose it based on reasonable, logical grounds, the opposition has made its case using falsehoods – “death panels” and the like, couching universal health care in terms of socialism and communism, etc – i.e. ghosts and gremlins (or perhaps Kremlins would be more appropriate).

 

Now, if we’re ever going to fix health care, we have to do so logically, using sober facts – however, if we choose the alternative, and brand all attempts to provide universal health care in terms of death panels and communism, well, it will never get fixed. To make matters worse, the leaders on the right are well aware that the gremlins and ghosts don’t really exist, but they are a handy way to scare the public into voting for their interests, and against their own.

 

I would never suggest that democrats (and/or liberals) are not guilty of using fear and misinformation to sell a piece of legislation, but unlike the republicans, they haven’t made it the cornerstone of their governing philosophy. It wasn’t always this way, but it is now.

[Sir Stewart]

Also I'm curious to know if the people of MA voted for health care (a referendum) or did it happen on the floor at the state Senate/House?

 

It was legislation from the Romney administration that passed both houses I believe.

Yes, the Romney administration.

[uncool2pillow]

Only in America is a taxpayer funded Wall Street bailout and a health care bill without a public option and windfall profits for insurance companies, considered socialism. Since when is it socialism to take from everyone to give to the wealthy?

Pretty sure that's how it worked in the USSR, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe. Wealthy = party leaders.

[MattZ]

Pretty sure that's how it worked in the USSR, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe. Wealthy = party leaders.

 

Straw man aside, that's not socialism.

[calvino]

It was legislation from the Romney administration that passed both houses I believe.

Yes, the Romney administration.

 

Did the people of MA think the world was going to end when that socialist Romney signed the bill?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Straw man aside, that's not socialism.

 

That's Socialism, big-S.

[Sir Stewart]

Did the people of MA think the world was going to end when that socialist Romney signed the bill?

 

No, I think everyone was pretty excited. I was busy getting married at the time to notice all that much though.

[Good Old Neon]

Andrew Sullivan has summed up my feelings perfectly:

 

Cohn writes a letter to nervous and frustrated House Democrats. I want to look away. Those of us who want Obama to succeed in tackling this country's deepest problems are bummed enough. But healthcare reform was never my reason for supporting him. I was much more invested in getting past the cynicism and laziness of the red-blue divide, restoring the rule of law and the constitutional balance, ending the unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stopping torture, and so on. But for those progressives who have fought for wider access to health insurance for their entire lives, this must be an excruciating, devastating moment.

 

It is, of course, heightened by the almost unimaginable irony of Ted Kennedy's seat being the death-knell for insurance reform, the end of the hopes of many that they might have a chance to buy some affordable insurance, that they could get insured despite a pre-existing condition, that the rest of their lives would not be filled with economic stagnation and profound personal insecurity. Well, the GOP has a clear message to them: "Tough shit. We needed a way to break a reform presidency and your lives were the mechanism."

 

The glee with which the GOP (I would add to that, Brown voters and republican voters more generally - me) is greeting the end of any access too health insurance for millions of the working poor, even as they propose nothing in its stead to help them or to restrain soaring costs for everyone else, is instructive. This really is a game to them. But to the sincere progressives who backed this moderate bill as the best they could get, this is, simply, tragic. And to those of us who wanted politics to become something more than a game, given the accelerating decline of this country on all fronts, it's a body blow.

 

link - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/pen-pals-on-the-hill.html#more

[uncool2pillow]

Straw man aside, that's not socialism.

I think many conservatives and others are against growing the government in the name of the "common good" (ie, socialism) because we believe that, in reality, those in charge will always take more than their fair share. Doesn't matter if it's Communist Party leaders in USSR or China or Wall Street bankers in America.

[Sir Stewart]

This is kind of enjoyable.

 

Swept off our feet

By Brian McGrory

Boston Globe Columnist / January 20, 2010

I’m going to need some Advil and a cold compress, please. I’m the Massachusetts Electorate, and I have what is bar none the absolute worst hangover of my entire voting life.

 

Seriously, I was so drunk on power, so caught up in the moment, so free of any of my usual inhibitions, I can’t remember what’s gone on these last two weeks. Think, Electorate, think. What did I do?

 

This much I’m starting to remember. Martha and I walked into the party and everything seemed to be going fine. She wasn’t talking much, but she never really does, and she wasn’t exactly pushing me to bare my soul, either. That’s what I’ve always liked about Martha: She’s a low-maintenance politician.

 

And now I’m vaguely recalling that stranger across the room, the one in the barn jacket who kept smiling at me and seemed to know my name. Martha vanished for a while, and - is it bad that I’m saying this? - I didn’t really care.

 

Suddenly, that tall, handsome man was standing at my side doing something that Martha rarely did - offering to pay for drinks, chatting me up, curious what was on my mind.

 

Every time I ever tried telling Martha about my day, my hopes, my dreams, she shushed me and said she was preparing a legal brief or watching “Law & Order.’’ And now there’s a stranger telling me he could change my entire world.

 

Scott! That was his name. Lived near the outlet stores. Talked a lot about being smarter with money. I know, not like Martha, who always had some expensive home renovation project up her sleeve.

 

And then, I remember that time itself seemed to stop. The mundanity of everyday events gave way to the exhilaration of my suddenly unpredictable existence. No more Martha taking me for granted. No more Martha calling all the shots. I was living the moment, immersed in the life I always wanted before caution overwhelmed desire.

 

We were on the dance floor, Scott and I, moving to the music, his hands all over my body politic. Everyone was watching, and I mean everyone - fellow partygoers, bartenders, passersby staring in the windows. Look at me, the Massachusetts Electorate, the bellwether of America!

 

I think I took my shirt off. I think I didn’t care. I remember something about Scott in a pair of Calvin Klein jockey shorts, but it may have been a picture he showed me from his wallet.

 

Out of nowhere, there were video cameras filming us from every angle. Analysts were describing the events. Scott’s important friends were texting and calling my cell. Get this: Curt Schilling, talking to a regular old Electorate like me.

 

Then, above the din and the music and the cheering, I distinctly heard someone ask, “How’s Martha going to feel about this?’’

 

And just like that, there she was, back at the bar, giving me that aloof prosecutorial look I knew all too well. I went back to her, sweaty and out of breath. Amazingly, she didn’t seem angry. She didn’t really show any emotion at all. She just pretended like nothing ever happened and tried to continue on.

 

Oh, but something did happen. I knew it, she knew it, and so did Scott, who was still beckoning from the other end of the bar, asking me to take a walk outside. And now it’s coming clear: I did.

 

He was talking nonstop, but I noticed he was repeating himself over and over again - 41st vote, and drawing boards, and being a “Scott Brown Republican.’’ He was starting to lose me until we were standing in front of a GMC pickup and he said, “This is my truck.’’

 

Oh, you bad boy. You bad, bad boy.

 

I remember catching my breath. I remember pulling a curtain shut. I remember having to make a really important choice.

 

I needed to send a message. I don’t know much about Scott, and I have no idea how long he’ll be in my life, but I do know that nobody will ever take me for granted again.

 

[MattZ]

I think many conservatives and others are against growing the government in the name of the "common good" (ie, socialism) because we believe that, in reality, those in charge will always take more than their fair share. Doesn't matter if it's Communist Party leaders in USSR or China or Wall Street bankers in America.

 

Well, then many conservatives don't know what socialism means. Which explains a lot, actually.

 

ETA:

I am grabbing this from wikipedia just because it is easy:

 

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3]

 

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential[4] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.