She's only outspending her opponent by 2:1 (it's amazing it is as close as it is)

DB, we don't get much opportunity these days to follow Wes's lead. If you're not going to be with his program, then just go away.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

in my comment below:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18188#comment-354600

It is VERY important that Scott Brown loses the MA Senate race

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 15, 2010 - 7:26am.

You will see in this comment credible documentation that Scott Brown is liked by Rush Limbaugh, by Sarah Palin, and that he is officially endorsed by the tea party kooks!

Scott Brown being in the Senate would be just like having another ideologue like Jim DeMint in the Senate!

I cannot emphasize enough how VERY important it is that Scott Brown loses the MA Senate race just like how Doug Hoffman lost the special NY-23 Congressional race!

Gen. Clark understands how important that the MA Senate race is because he sees that the same ideologues who were backing Doug Hoffman are now backing Scott Brown who IS an ideologue:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17722

The Importance of Tuesday

Submitted by Wes Clark on October 29, 2009 - 2:40pm.

"Radical tea party activists from across the country have come to New York to volunteer for Hoffman's campaign, seeing the race's outcome as a first electoral test of their movement's strength.

Hoffman has even been endorsed by the conservative Club for Growth, Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, and Dick Armey..."

this mainly because of the five reasons that I listed in this post:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18265

ANALYSIS: Why Obama will probably have a lot of political problems in 2010

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 4, 2010 - 7:39am.

I put two solutions of what can realistically be done at the end of this post (both a short-term solution and a long-term solution) if anybody with any decision making authority will listen to me!

...but probably not for the reason you think.

If the general demograghic breakdown is 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Independent; maybe the other 2/3rds who are not Democrat (especially the Indies) are getting pretty pissed at what is going on.

I really don't believe that the majority of the country (even Massachusetts) buys into the socialist agenda of Nancy Pelosi and Obama.

Democrats will vote for Democrats regardless, but that alone won't get you to 50% of the vote.

and Obama" quote that you said in your comment above?

Pelosi and Obama clearly believe in more government involvement than most Republicans do but their policies on an overall basis are definitely not like the policies of officially socialist countries in my opinion!

A comment like "the socialist agenda of Nancy Pelosi and Obama" which you made above sounds just like what the tea party kooks are saying and that kind of language is on the crazy signs that they like to display at their rallies.

The polity is angry, but it's about top/down issues. The reality is that what Obama and Pelosi are trying to do is very tepid in terms of what would benefit the people. So far we have a health insurance reform bill that's going to do something about insurance companies rejecting people for pre-existing conditions. At that, I'm not holding my breath that anything will pass. Meanwhile, people have watched bailouts for banksters who got rich doing CDS and CDOs that were insured with AIG. We got left holding the bag every which way but loose. The polity has had it with corporate welfare. The have been the biggest beneficiaries as "citizens" of some form of socialism. Heads they win. Tails we lose.

...that the insurance companies will find loopholes in the bill allowing them to continue to reject people for pre-existing conditions and cancel their plans, especially since they were instrumental in writing the bill and they don't seem to howl very loudly about those two features.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

They have the right to sell really expensive insurance to people with pre-existing conditons. The bill doesn't prevent them from pricing people out of the market. There's nothing in the bill that pushes for not for profit insurance to be offered as an option. All of the insurance companies are for profit. It's about the stockholders and the CEOs same as Wall Street.

In the bill, isn't there a threefold multiple limit on people with expensive conditions? That is, coverage to people with such conditions cannot be charged more than three times the coverage charged for young and healthy people. N'est-ce pas?

With regard to non-profit insurers, they still have to break even somehow, and should lay aside some reserves. Only the government could operate health care insurance at a loss, using other sources of revenue to subsidize health care such as, say, anti-missile defense systems, fighters we don't need, and wars we can't win and shouldn't have started.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

What plan will be the basis for this formula? There will be cheap, get nothing plans for healthy young people and then the typical expensive plans they have now. People with pre-existing conditions aren't going to be factored with the group that gets 5 doctors visits a year type of plan.

And unfortunately it is a feature not a bug.

The ONLY way to keep the insurance companies honest was to provide them with real competition......a govt run program.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt

The only way to deal with the insurance companies is to eliminate them.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

and start fighting for what we CAN get. No more pie-in-the-sky fantasies and throwing our own under the bus and whining about no public option, etc., etc.

Do we want health care or not? Are we going to FIGHT for it???

LISTEN TO KRUGMAN!

ROFLOL!!! You do realize your guy was the king of this, don't you?

As for supporting a health care bill that forces me to buy junk insurance from the very same industry that has raped and pillaged the people of this country for years -- no thanks. I not only won't support it, or fight for it, I will actively fight against it.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

...that no matter how Obama will tout health care reform if it passes, the bill under consideration doesn't reform very much.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

...as people realize they are forced to buy junk insurance or be fined.

Great political move......not

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt

nothing more need be said than his deficit flip flop.

Bush deficits = bad/destructive

Obama deficits = good/nessicary

your ignorance is showing. You forgot about tax cuts for the rich and the housing bubble going unchecked that brought on this miserable reciession. When on the verge of a depression, stimulus has to happen. Krugman is very clear that the deficit needs to be dealt with, but explains clearly why stimulus has to come first. He's not a hypocrit. Clearly, you're not paying attention.

isn't that just the same as tax cuts for the rich, we are just choosing to give to the private insurance industry?

If government money is just being thrown down a rat hole and the rich are the only ones winning it is no different than Bush.

Obama is just using a less obvious policy vehicle to make the rich even richer, and Prof. Krugman has drunk the O's kool aid.

During the primaries he was always clear that whatever insurance bill we got, it would require a mandate. He wasn't an O supporter at all. He's always wanted universal healthcare. When it became obvious that what we were getting is health insurance reform, not health care reform, he realized the context of what might actually happen is something modeled on what they have in Switzerland, which granted, insurance companies are not for profit like they are here. Krugman is willing to take the lemonade that is this lemon rather than get nothing at all, although he's not happy about it. He's not drinking kool-aid. If you really believe these things, you can comment on his blog. I do it all the time.

So what is it with you? It's like you want to pick a right/left fight, when the issues we have in this country are about the top/bottom. The dwindling inbetween are rapidly becoming the bottom. Other than talking to PC, you may be out of your depth here.

heck no, I'm an independent and frankly I would not be caught dead in party politics ever again, Wes Clark was the one exception.

I know the issues are top bottom, but I'm not willing to roll over after a little bleating like some darn sheep, unlike Krugman defenders.

You know what? Krugman is no pauper. He is a member of the elite too, you know, right?

He's a university professor who writes books, articles and teaches economics to more people than those who attend Princeton. I've learned a lot from him.

Bush deficits with tax cuts while financing two wars = bad/destructive

Obama deficits in the short term to stimulate the economy and create jobs = good/necessary

The two can't be compared.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

with 10% unemployment?

I like stimulus, I thought it was a good idea, but the way it was run was terrible, and shoving this boon doggle for the insurance industry down our throats is just rewarding the same corporate greed mongers that you people say are to blame for all of this.

I'm not fan of Bush, but come on, only an idealouge or an idiot can't see the obvious parrallels between Bush and The One. Incompetent disaster responce, mismanagment of the military, deficit spending, making the rich even richer?

Are you just being willfully blind because the idea of there being no hope is simply unbearable so you keep putting your trust in the incompetent lies of the democrats, who are in truth every bit as corrupt and inept as their republican bretheren?

You compared two Krugman views on completely different subjects. I just pointed out the difference. Call me an idiot if you want. I've been called worse. But I was not defending anybody or anything. Simply pointing out the flaw in your logic, which it seems could turn out to be a full-time job.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

my ideas on haiti relief a "pipe dream" I'm not shedding any tears allegedly calling you an idiot, personally I don't think you are an idiot. you are quite obviously well read, literate and follow the news.

In terms of labeling, in your case Stan, I'm leaning towards idealouge...

You are so self righteous, so sure of yourself, so dead certain you are right, you remind me of Bush.

The deficit is not a "different subject", The causes are different but the net result in terms of government debt is exactly the same.

As for flawed logic, lets see how haiti plays out with the incompetent relief effort the one has put together with his team, we will see who is right, then we'll talk about "flawed logic".

Of course you'll never admit it if you are wrong, it is the way of the idealouge.

of labeling people you don't know the first thing about. I've been blogging with Stan for 6 years, and you are absolutely incorrect to say he'd never admit he is wrong. Stan and I don't agree on everything by any means, but I can assure you, he is not the person you seem think he is, after being here, what, 2 days? Chill.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

when they lost VA and New Jersey.

They were arrogant.

You too, Mitch. I was just laughing at the comment because it's just that -- laughable. If Obama was anywhere near being a socialist, I'd be supporting him with everything I've got.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

there is no way in hell he'd ever have been elected.

I like supporting candidates who can win. Maybe the situation in MA will finally wake some progressives up to the real world.

...she was very popular during the primary when she said she would NOT vote for the any health care bill that contained the Stupak amendment. What killed her was after she becaime the nominee, she changed her mind.....due to pressure from party leaders no doubt. If she had stuck to her guns, she wouldn't be in the trouble she is right now. Add to that people have seen that the Dems are no different than the Republicans when it come to taking care of the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt

especially this

Add to that people have seen that the Dems are no different than the Republicans when it come to taking care of the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor.

tristero blames the party for her weakness in the polls. I agree.

Questions, Anyone?
by tristero

In my previous post, I blamed the Democratic party for screwing up the Coakley race. Sure enough. in comments, several folks rushed to the party's defense, blaming Coakley for a nonexistent and/or rotten campaign.

I don't buy it. What's going on is similar to the dreadful behavior of the Dem party during the 2004, and for that matter, the 2000, presidential election. Democrats had two candidates who were both vastly superior in every way, shape, and form, to their Republican rival (a manifestly incompetent sociopath named George W. Bush). There campaigns were mishandled when they weren't simply unsupported. Their efforts were all but deliberately undermined. Could Gore and Kerry have been better candidates? Sure, they made mistakes, but the lack of genuinely serious support and defense that they received from the Dem party was, imo, decisive.

And here are the Democrats, working overtime to help Coakley not only lose, but lose really fucking badly. This is completely inexcusable political malpractice. But I'll bet there are a few commenters who will find a way to excuse this, or dismiss it as a trivial error, or place the fault with Coakley.

This refusal to pin the blame for spectacular Democratic crash-and-burns on the leadership - meaning the people who set the overall strategy to fund, market, and sell candidates - is, quite frankly, weird. There is far too much evidence and history to ignore or dismiss. Should Coakley have started campaigning earlier? Duh. And you think the decision not to - and the economic decisions related to it - were simply hers to make unilaterally? Please, people. Her strategy, or lack of one, was a collective decision, coordinated with the national party, I suspect. (And if, by some odd happenstance, the party is NOT coordinating Senate races, that should be cause for heads to roll at the top of the party.) Likewise, no: It's not that she didn't have the "character" to stand up to the party bosses. It's that, for whatever the reason, they simply weren't gonna do a good job for her, period, no matter what she did. Or put it another way if you prefer: they're too inept to even know what a good job is.

I repeat: It is hardly any fault of Coakley that the race is so close. She could be the least charismatic person since Zelig and the most uncooperative since Bartleby and she'd still be trouncing a rightwing lunatic like her opponent if Democratic leaders had really wanted to focus on retaining Kennedy's seat for a progressive voice.

Or, for that matter, cared very much to pass a healthcare reform bill.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Accordng to MSNBC's Chuck Todd, whose opinion I usually value, Coakley became Senator-elect in her head as soon as she won the primary. He added that she basically didn't begin hitting the street and knocking on doors 'til about two weeks ago, when the numbers in the race started to turn south. He labeled her campaign "deplorable," and said that she is not "warm" and doesn't connect with voters on a personal level.

It's now up to the Party. She can win if the MA Democratic party turns out the vote.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

...on a personal level

Long before he was a politician, the Republican candidate vying for Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat posed nude for the centerfold of Cosmo. Scott Brown won our “America’s Sexiest Man” contest and appeared in the June 1982 issue. In those days he was a 22-year-old law student at Boston College who was cramming for finals just days before stripping down for our photographer

 http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo

Heck, if Harry Reid can judge candidates based on appearances like being 'light skinned' and having 'no Negro dialect', then why can't Brown win for similar reasons? We already know that erudite candidates like Wes Clark don't have a chance. And most importantly, Brown has a daughter who was a semi-finalist on American Idol.

campaigning. It a matter of Brown pushing the right buttons and tapping voter dissatisfaction. The polls show that voters are not in favor of this healthcare bill.

 The polls show that voters are not in favor of this healthcare bill.

To the extent that that is true, why? The polls seem to have done a U-turn. I wonder why.

Part of that is probably scare tactics in the anti-reform ads.

But I wonder if the polls reflect the number of people with no health insurance at all.

That said, if I were polled, I'm not sure how I would respond.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

about universal health care. Problem is many are angry they have done anything at all in this regard.

That's the reality; the support in this country for health care reform is tepid at best and there is a large bloc of voters who are passionately against it.

That's why health care has been such an uphill battle; the passion is on the other side. Washington is simply reflecting the public will, or lack thereof.

...Republicans and Independents are NOT clamoring for universal health care. That's leaves the other 33% that are and that doesn't explain what appears to be a close race in Massachusetts.

Do you really think a pissed off Democrat is going to be voting for the Republican there? (of course, they might not show up at the polls, which in some way would be a 'quasi-vote' for the Republican)

...in a capitalist country known as the United States.

A lot of our ancestors left Europe for opportunity here...and I'm not interested in government promising people cradle-to-grave 'safety' in exchange for giving up freedom/opportunity.

I know exactly what a socialist country is having spent some time in Europe and that is where we're headed.

Take the example of 'single payer' - another way of saying that is 'no competition' with central government control dictating compensation to health care providers and setting all the other rules. I'm extremely thankful that I had the opportunity to take care of my own serious medical issue here with the ability to choose (yes, CHOICE) the best medical facility in the world (Cleveland Clinic) with the best surgeon in the world for my particular operation instead of the 'expedient', cost-effective treatment I may have faced over in Europe or elsewhere.

In terms of people 'loving' single payer, socialized medicine, let's look at Great Britain:

7% of the people there 'very satisfied' with the system there compared to 6% in the US. 5% of the people there 'somewhat satisfied' there compared to 3% in the US (Gallup survey). Doesn't sound like a really ringing endorsement to me.

In other words, we have about 10% of the people in both countries happy with their systems, with the other 90% basically bitching about things primarily because they're likely not happy about having some medical affliction often brought about by their own behavior and need something/someone else to blame.

..."socialized medicine." I call it "civilized medicine."

A single payer system doesn't have to limit choice, opportunity, or freedom. It depends on how it would be administered.

How wonderful for you that you were able to go to the best and pay for it. Millions of people don't have that capabilty.

But you're safe. The bill that emerges, if it does emerge, won't come close to universal health care or a single payer system. You'll still have plenty of people left out and unable to pay for insurance for whose troubles you can blame themselves.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."

That's worked real well so far. rotfl!!

You really make me laugh, DB. You are so totally clueless.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt

...actually have the opportunity to evaluate providers a), b), c), etc...making a decision and then living (or dying) with the consequences

I'm just glad I had the freedom to go through 3 different opinions fairly quickly with plenty of diagnostic info before finally hitting the 'comfort zone' with the Cleveland Clinic and taking advantage of it (never would have happened in Canada or Europe).

Another thing about living in a foreign country is realizing how relatively great things are in this country.

"For several centuries Europe led the world in terms of prosperity and progress.
As little as a hundred years ago, much of the American continent was virgin wilderness. Today, a hundred years later, the USA has completely overtaken Europe to become the unrivalled leader of the world economy. Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come any where near. The really prosperous American regions have nearly twice the affluence of Europe. It is worth reminding ourselves what this means. In these regions the average American can get exactly twice as much of everything as the average European. Which goes to show the importance of an economic policy to stimulate growth."

http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf (Swedish 'think tank')

The only people clueless are the ones sitting back waiting for government to solve their problems.

... Ins providers would never collude to fix prices. Yeah right!

And....yes......those poor Europeans. How can they live with all that free healthcare......9-5 work days......4-6 weeks vacation each year. Not to mention all the safety nets if they lose a job or whatever. Poor things. Must be awful.

And on a personal note, I think of my poor cousin. He was a school teacher, his wife was a nurse. They vacationed every year, had a nice house, nice car, put three kids through college and now......the horror.....they have retired to the island of Crete where they built a beautiful house in an olive grove. Of course other cousins are not as fortunate.....they have to make do with trips to India, Cairo and the South of France a couple of times a year. And no....none of them are rich. They just live in a country where professions like teaching and nursing are are paid well and of course they never have to put anything aside for if they get sick. All will be paid for and their jobs will be waiting for them when they recover.....no matter low long it takes.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Teddy Roosevelt

Must have been written decades ago. Right now, both Europe and China are eating our lunch. Damn bullies. But as long as non-thinking, insulated, parochial people still think this country is # 1 in everything, I guess all is well. But as for me, I had a really good teaching job in Den Haag and more than once have regreted coming back to the States to live. If it weren't for my immediate family, I would move back to Europe in a heartbeat.

"I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."—Nat Hentoff

healthcare as something to be earned along with the other 'necessitites' of life including food, shelter, education, transportation, employment, etc...along with some personal responsibility to minimize those costs.

"Ironically, those who claim health care is “a right and not a privilege” support policies that make it a privilege. When government enforces an alleged “right” to health care, the political class decides what health care is and when it’s appropriate for people to get it. That is, health care becomes a privilege granted by those in charge"

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/health-care-is-not-a-privilege-nor-is-it-a-right/

...but (a) most people don't have a choice in their health insurance plan, because it's what they can afford or is provided by their employer; and (b) there's always someone, whether it's a legislator or a flunky in a company, deciding "what health care is and when it's appropriate for people to get it."

I don't think that you realize how empty your arguments sound.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark: "We're no better than our own sense of humility."