In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin.
The religious right is motivated by the suspicion that someone, somewhere,
is having fun -- and that this must be stopped.
Yeah, things really suck now that the Democrats are now in the minority in the Senate, with only 59 Democratic senators out of 100 total. No way they can get anything done with only 59 votes out of 100 votes, such a small minority of votes in the Senate is powerless.
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
I hear excuses!
Ground rules: Comments that consist solely of insults, fact-free talking points, are off-topic, or simply spam the same argument over and over will be deleted. The penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here. All viewpoints, however, are welcomed, even if I disagree vehemently with you.
WARNING: You are entitled to create your own arguments, but you are NOT entitled to create your own facts. If you spew scientific denialism, or insist that the sky is purple, or otherwise insist that your made-up universe of pink unicorns and cotton candy trees is "real", well -- expect the banhammer.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Whatever....
ReplyDeleteI didn't do much of a post today, mostly just some camping pictures.
Candy-ass. Useless. Fucks.
ReplyDeleteYou said it, Grandpa!
ReplyDeleteExcuses? You bet. They keep giving me excuses to tell 'em to bugger off. The Rethuglicans never had that kind of majority and managed to pass all kinds of nasty ass shit. Oh...wait, their opponents were Democrats.
ReplyDeleteGrandpa Eddie's got that right.
Oh my, I had a troll posting right-wing talking points on my blog, in violation of my rules (posts consisting solely of stupidity will get deleted).
ReplyDeleteReminder: If you want to post lies and insults handed down to you by your right-wing Party commissars on Hate Radio, Faux News, and the National Review, do it on your own blog, not mine. I'm willing to discuss anything rational, but when you start talking about nonsense like calling all members of a union thugs, you're out of here because you're just being a dishonest ass, and the penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here.
-- Badtux the Rules Penguin
I guess name calling of your opponents is OK, but their opinions must be silenced.
ReplyDeleteOk.
Let me restate: it is interesting the turmoil and pain the left is currently in based upon what may have been the single most safe Democrat senate seat in the country.
But from what I gather from the talking points at Kos, DU and
HuffPo the real problem was Coakley wasn't "progressive" enough; THEN she'd have won. What the country ~really~ wants in MORE gubmint intrusion into their lives, MORE taxation, MORE redistribution of wealth, MORE Keynsian economics, and a single-payor socialized medicine policy.
And you know what? That is EXACTLY the platform the Democrats should adopt for November 2010. They should run true "Progressive" candidates in the districts that Blue Dogs won a year ago.
But, personally, I'm not so sure at all that is what the voters were saying there. But I'm wrong according to the Progressive blogosphere.
RCC, the uber-edumacated, unreligious, Free-Thinking, Free Market, Personally Responsible Libertarian
P.S.: F@ck the Neo-Con 'Pubs.
My blog, my property. If you want to do name calling do it on your own blog, I have no reason to allow you to deface my property with such nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI don't read Kos/Huffpo/whatever because if I wanted to read idiotic talking points I'd be a Republican. I will say that I find their collective fainting couch act to be tedious. 59 or 60 doesn't make any different, the most conservative Dems are basically Republicans in the first place so any liberal programs were never going to make it past filibuster in the Senate regardless of who won in Massachusetts.
As for your notion that giving people what they want -- such as universal health care -- isn't what they want, well. I don't know what to say about that. The Kaiser Family Foundation has been running tracking polls on this issue for the past three years and support for a government guarantee of health care for all Americans has been consistent and uniform at around 75% for all three of those years. Once you start talking about specific policies support wavers but even single-payer, the most intrusive of all government health care programs, gets over 55% support on their polls if you call it "Medicare for All" rather than the meaningless term "single-payer" which makes people say "what's that?". In short, the polls appear to state that, for health care, people really DO want more government involvement, despite anything you might state.
Regarding the notion of running liberal Dems for office in the Blue Dog states, that seems pretty silly to me. A real Senate leader could keep the Blue Dogs in line using the usual mechanisms of party unity, much as the Republicans keep their members in line using the usual mechanisms of party unity (campaign funds, committee memberships, earmarks to districts, etc.). The Dem's problem is a lack of leadership all the way to the top -- President Obama -- rather than the composition of their majorities in the House and Senate. It doesn't surprise me when you tell me that HuffPo/Kos are wanting to run liberals against the Blue Dogs though, the Nutroots are good at stupid things like that.
BTW, the Massachusetts election was not about universal health care for the simple reason that Massachusetts *already* has universal health care, which despite its problems is still quite popular in Massachusetts -- 68% of Massachusetts voters in the last poll support their system despite the right-wing cage-rattling about how "horrible" it is. Over 2/3rds of Massachusetts voters, in other words, say the right-wingers are full of shit. One of the points Scott Brown made was that the federal system would override the state universal healthcare system that Massachusetts voters like. That definitely resonated with Massachusetts voters, and would resonate with any other state that votes in universal healthcare on their own for that matter. And BTW, Brown ran on a platform of *more* jobs programs and *more* government regulation (of the financial industry). So much for the notion that somehow a vote for Brown was a vote for "less government"...
- Badtux the Democracy Penguin
Tux -
ReplyDeleteYou covered most of what I had to say. I'll just add that in addition to a lack of leadership, the Dem's also exhibit a lack of genuine belief in progressive values. That's right RCC, you read it here.
Oh, what the hell.
If RCC had the slightest fucking idea what the hell he was talking about, he wouldn't be able to ridicule:
MORE gubmint intrusion into their lives, MORE taxation, MORE redistribution of wealth, MORE Keynsian economics, and a single-payor socialized medicine policy.
when the biggest intrusion in decades was the Patriot Act; wealth distribution is skewed more towards the top than any time since 1928; there have been virtually no Keynesian economic policies in decades; and, as you indicated, single payer is popular.
RCC - go do some god-damned homework.
Keynesian economics. Jesus H. Christ in hand-cart.
JzB
RCC is also wrong about the "progressive talking points". The discussion on Coakley's loss has centered around *Obama* and the national Dems not being bold and progressive enough. Everyone in the "Progressive Blogosphere" seems to agree that Coakley ran a terrible campaign by taking a vacation in the middle of the race, ridiculing a locally popular sports figure, and her publicly scorning the idea of shaking hands at Fenway in the cold, like Brown was doing. I read the blogs RCC mentioned every day, spending many many hours doing so since I am irregularly employed at the moment, and Coakley's policy positions are almost never mentioned--let alone as to where they sit on the left-right spectrum.
ReplyDeleteAnd to drive the last nail into the coffin of RCC's absurdity, here is the reality of the 20% (or so)of Mass. Obama voters who switched to Brown.
ReplyDeleteHEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT "DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH"
* by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
* by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home
VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION
* 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
* 86% of Obama voters who stayed home
OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER
* 57% of Brown voters say Obama "not delivering enough" on change he promised
* 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home
PLUS: Obama voters overwhelming want bold economic populism from Democrats in 2010.
This is actual polling data, not KOS talking points, as a half minute with TEH GOOGLE revealed.
I copied it from here. It can also be found lots of other places.
Cheers!
JzB the libertarian exposing trombonist