metapunditedgy (400 posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:30 PM
Original message
There is a $#*@-storm brewing over Coakley.
Based on my reading of the talking points and comments out today... pardon me if I'm stating the obvious.
On the one side, those who claim that the potential for a Republican to take Ted Kennedy's seat means that voters are dissatisfied with Obama's rightward, post-election move and the inability of elected Democrats in Congress to even fight for meaningful health care reform. They will blame the corporatists and blue dogs.
On the other side, the less-progressive Democrats and perhaps those who are primarily concerned about power and paychecks will criticize Coakley and her campaign, and who knows what else. Anything to avoid taking responsibility for rightward concessions that are disliked by the party base and Americans as a whole. (Ok, maybe there's a more positive way to state their position, but it looks to me like they're in a bind right now.)
I mean, it's not like MA is a red state. Something got badly screwed up somewhere.
The apologists are already out, trying to manage the discussion. I guess it's obvious which side I'm on. It would be interesting to watch and see how this turns out, if there weren't so much at stake.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7500310Name removed (0 posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
oopsie.
napi21 (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Did it ever occur to you that the majority of people don't see
THEIR premiums going down? They don't see anything in the HC bills that will benefit THEM! Yes many uninsured people will be covered, but it's the old "What's that mean to ME? is still there!
Then there's the unemployment issue. What's the unemployment % in MA? How many of those people are voters who blame the current powers?
I don't think it's necessarily about Obama as much as it's about the current conditions of the avg. voter and they blame any incumbant!
What???? DimRats aren't looking out for others, just themselves?
xchrom (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Obama figures in none of that? None of that is justified
On obama's watch?
At what point in obama's tenure does the buck stop
with him?
Are you trying to blame Lord Zero? That's racist !!!!
napi21 (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. The point where he has no control! He can ask, order, beg, & demand
Congress to do or not do some things, but there are a number of Reps & Sens who do what THEY WANT or what they think their constituents want and won't cooperate! I can't blame Obama for that!
Yet President Bush was able to get majorities to go along with him. Could it be that President Bush was a leader, and Lord Zero is a campaigner and a community organ grinder?
Edweird (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. "I'm getting 95% of what I want."
Higher taxes and higher unemployment are what you wanted?
OneTenthofOnePercent (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. When the tent is too big, the seams begin to bust.
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 07:40 PM by OneTenthofOnePercent
When we have the whitehouse and congress (by a LARGE margin) and the perception is that we are doing nothing, then the big tent begins to break apart. The ultra-libs complain abuot centrists, the new additions to the tent see no real progress, conservadems become apathetic... the base quite literally falls apart. Big tents get politicians elected easily - big tents also expect results or destabilize more easily.
This ones on the dem leadership for:
A) not providing competent candidates
B) Letting the illusion of stagnation in washington and medicrity exist.
... it also hurts when OUR landmark legislation is just a handout to corporation in THEIR pockets.
You can't please everyone in the big tent, so please the corporate money givers, right?
regnaD kciN (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. Unfortunately, no...
Edited on Mon Jan-18-10 07:45 PM by regnaD kciN
On the one side, those who claim that the potential for a Republican to take Ted Kennedy's seat means that voters are dissatisfied with Obama's rightward, post-election move and the inability of elected Democrats in Congress to even fight for meaningful health care reform. They will blame the corporatists and blue dogs.
A loss by Coakley will result in the "conventional wisdom" that "Obama's liberal agenda is wildly unpopular even in ultra-blue Massachusetts, and Democrats will have to 'move to the center' to survive." It'll be 1994 all over again.
Conventional Wisdom just might be right.
ChiciB1 (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. My Reality Is This... Obama IS NOT A Liberal... But Somehow That Is
what too many people think! If he's a Liberal then I MUST be a Communist or something like that! He's much more to the "Right" of me and I laugh out loud when I keep hearing how LIBERAL he is!
I haven't seen it in ANY way!
He is, and you are.
flamingdem (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-18-10 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. On MSNBC a man said "We have health reform, don't want to go through it again" nt
That is totally irresponsible, but I imagine it's a common thought in MA.
They have seen the costs and the failure of socialized medicine. They don't wish to foist it on the rest of the country. I'd say that is a very responsible way of thinking.
