# Congratulations to Senator Scott Brown



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Congratulations to Republican Scott Brown, the freshman Senator from the Great State of Massachusetts. Should this Republican victory in the very bosom of the liberal Democratic camp be viewed as a repudiation of the Obama/Pelosi/Reed agenda or as a warning shot, across the bow of every self-absorbed incumbent (It's time to listen to the will of the people!), presently serving in an elective capacity? What say the political pundits, in our midst?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

A question I've been wondering about, will this push Democrats to a more centrist stance, or will they fight back and try an push an agenda from their more liberal wing? It definitely seems to be a question they are asking themselves.

As for Brown, I think he won on a combination of factors, including mistrust of incumbents and a feeling that Washington is out of touch. However, the behind closed doors negotiations on the healthcasre bill were a PR boost Brown couldn't have paid for.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think both sides need to move to a more centrist place. Certainly the current Democratic policies are unpopular; I think they are at least borderline destructive.

However, I hope the Republicans still realize that the independent majority does not want a massive rightward ideological swing. They want a practical government that values achievement and a strong economy more than pleasing the folks who while they crow the loudest are out on the political extremes. This left wing year has not been fun, but except for conservative pundits, I don't think most folks are ready for the right wing foolishness either.

Independents, not Republicans won this election for Brown.

The health care and the curious policy of providing terrorists with full constitutional rights are not popular and at least in my opinion not well thought out (to put it mildly.)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I find myself inclined to agree with both agnash and forsbergacct2Ks conclusions. I think it all boils down to most Americans just getting fed up with being ignored by those they have elected to National office! We do not need an elective Mom and Dad to establish policies and pass legislation telling us what we need but rather, we need legislators that exercise their elective responsibilities in a manner that reflects the collective intent of the electoral majority.


----------



## IlliniFlyer (Sep 20, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> However, I hope the Republicans still realize that the independent majority does not want a massive rightward ideological swing. They want a practical government that values achievement and a strong economy more than pleasing the folks who while they crow the loudest are out on the political extremes.


How is that not conservative ideology? In other words, what is not conservative about a practical government that values achievement? I tend to think that Americans are mostly conservative when it comes to their own lives but sway liberal when dealing with others.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Some define conservative ideology as including a host of divisive social issues where there to put it mildly is not a consensus (although on both the left and the right, the talk show hosts, etc. assume that they and only they are all-knowing.)

My view of conservatism tends to agree with them more on fiscal issues. I don't care whether someone is "conservative" or not. I do care whether they frivolously spend money especially when we don't have a lot of it.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I find it amusing how the Huffington Post and Politico are drawing radically different conclusions on this. I don't think most of the political folks are getting this at all.

Right now, Barney Frank, who is generally quite liberal is one of the most reasonable people. He is saying that it would be a horrid idea to ram Health Care down people's throats before Brown is seated. That also surprises me.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

IlliniFlyer said:


> I tend to think that Americans are mostly conservative when it comes to their own lives but sway liberal when dealing with others.


Most of my Liberal friends live like June and Ward Cleaver.

They send their kids to Catholic school, yet promote a Liberal/Socialist agenda in public schools!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Right now, Barney Frank, who is generally quite liberal is one of the most reasonable people. He is saying that it would be a horrid idea to ram Health Care down people's throats ....


That's an unfortunate choice of words...

Here's another...



> Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Coakley's loss won't deter his colleagues from continuing their practice of blaming George W. Bush's administration.
> "President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident," he said. "President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused repairing the damage to our economy."




https://www.the-signal.com/news/article/23506/


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

agnash said:


> A question I've been wondering about, will this push Democrats to a more centrist stance, or will they fight back and try an push an agenda from their more liberal wing?.


I think we need to look no further back than the first year of the Clinton administration-they are likely to stay on the left until they lose the House. A rational Democrat (oxymoron?) would view this election as a wake up call, but they tend to live in their own world.

On a fashion/style note did anyone catch the watch Scott Brown was wearing? Looked like a Timex or maybe a G-Shock, anyway something quartz with a rubber band. Curious that Clinton and both Bushes wore similar.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's an unfortunate choice of words...


I laughed so hard I spit coffee on my keyboard:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A few random thoughts:

1. The Van Hollen quote is hilarious. You just can't make stuff like that up.

2. Frank's "reasonable" response is pure self-interest. If the folks who just put Brown into office see his vote being denied by political hijinks, they will understand their vote as being denied by those hijinks. Those folks are voters in the state of Massachusetts, which happens to be the state Frank represents. The same guy who wants to repeal the filibuster when it suits him, is cautious about poltical hardball if the voters are paying attention. 

3. Coakley was a terrible candidate, but polls suggest what did her in was passionate opposition to the current national Democratic agenda and tactics.

4. Dems should not lose heart. Even if you lose the House in November (possible but still not likely) or the Senate (possible but even less unlikely) you can count on the Republicans misplaying their hand. 

5. It would be politically shrewd for Obama to pull a Clinton and start to lead from the center, but for that to happen two things must happen: Obama must move to the center (something that nothing in his thin history suggests he will do) and he must actually lead (ditto). 

6. The "unfortunate choice of words" referenced below are actually a remarkably apt metaphor given the nature of the health care proposals on the table.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> I find myself inclined to agree with both agnash and forsbergacct2Ks conclusions. I think it all boils down to most Americans just getting fed up with being ignored by those they have elected to National office! We do not need an elective Mom and Dad to establish policies and pass legislation telling us what we need but rather, we need legislators that exercise their elective responsibilities in a manner that reflects the collective intent of the electoral majority.


+1...The Dems over-reaching this past year is starting to catch up with them. If you want proof, look at the polls...it's a 50/50 split for and against Obamacare, and his popularity is slipping. Honestly, what has the current administration really done? They can only blame the Bush administration for so long...at some point they're going to have to put on their big boy pants and take responsibility.

The vexing poblem is that the GOP is still clueless and without any clear direction, leadership or a platform that will appeal to socially moderate/fiscally conservative independents. IMO, they need to put a muzzle on the far right factionif they hope to connect and have any sustainable leverage with voters.

Voters are mad as hell and the last thing they want, as eagle2250 pointed out, is even more government nannyism.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> 1. The Van Hollen quote is hilarious. You just can't make stuff like that up.


He's my Congressman


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's an unfortunate choice of words...
> 
> Here's another...
> 
> ...


Yikes. (Cringes and leaves the house before mother reads post.)


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> He's my Congressman


Suffolk Downs and Barney Frank? Man you gotta move:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

_"I have said there that when Europe gets a ruler lodged in her gullet, there is no help for it but a bloody revolution; here we go and get a great big, emetical ballot, and heave it up."_

- Mark Twain, interview December, 1889.

Whatever now comes after the recent, throaty heaving up in Massachusetts, I am confident that both major parties will use it to the country's disadvantage. History is quite clear on the fact that we can't have good government under politicians. To go and fill Congress with them can't be wise.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Most of my Liberal friends live like June and Ward Cleaver.
> 
> They send their kids to Catholic school, yet promote a Liberal/Socialist agenda in public schools!!


As my wonderfully clever wife calls them: "Limosuine Liberals."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> Suffolk Downs and Barney Frank? Man you gotta move:icon_smile_big:


No, Von Hollen.

I got him and Laurel Park!!


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> 3. Coakley was a terrible candidate, but polls suggest what did her in was passionate opposition to the current national Democratic agenda and tactics.


I would be interested in seeing this poll. Do you have a source?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> I would be interested in seeing this poll. Do you have a source?


According to Politico, 52% of voters opposed the healthcare bill, and 42% said they specifically cast their vote to stop Obama.

https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708.html


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

agnash said:


> According to Politico, 52% of voters opposed the healthcare bill, and 42% said they specifically cast their vote to stop Obama.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708.html


And another: https://www.politico.com/blogs/glen..._WAS_a_referendum_on_health_care.html?showall


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> And another: https://www.politico.com/blogs/glen..._WAS_a_referendum_on_health_care.html?showall


That one is even more interesting. The president carried 63% of the vote in the election, but now has a 53% approval rating in the exit poll, in what is supposed to be one of the most heavily Democratic states in the nation.

I heard on NPR that the turnout for the election was the highest in Massachusetts for any non-presidential election since 1990.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Oh, and he dresses nice!!



















When he does whear clothes!!

:crazy:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

As a Democrat and a resident of Massachusetts, I think this is less about Scott Brown or even a Republican resurgence here and more about President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid basically accomplishing NOTHING in the last 12 months.

Even having said that, this race was completely the Democrats to lose - even up until 10 days ago. Basically the Democrats here took the electorate for granted. Coakley ran a terrible campaign that assumed that as the Democratic nominee - she would win by default. It was a colossal failure of the Democratic party - on a statewide and national level&#8230;but I am not ready to read too deeply into things here.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> As a Democrat and a resident of Massachusetts, I think this is less about Scott Brown or even a Republican resurgence here and more about President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid basically accomplishing NOTHING in the last 12 months.Even having said that, this race was completely the Democrats to lose - even up until 10 days ago. Basically the Democrats here took the electorate for granted. Coakley ran a terrible campaign that assumed that as the Democratic nominee - she would win by default. It was a colossal failure of the Democratic party - on a statewide and national level&#8230;but I am not ready to read too deeply into things here.


The good folk of Mass elected a conservative Republican to take "Teddy's seat" because Obama & co. had not accomplished their lefty agenda/promises?

Wrong.

It is, to a large degree, about what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are *trying to do* to the country.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Relayer said:


> The good folk of Mass elected a conservative Republican to take "Teddy's seat" because Obama & co. had not accomplished their lefty agenda/promises?
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It is, to a large degree, about what Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are *trying to do* to the country.


 You keep believing that.

If the economy and jobs rebound - and a health care bill passes that actually pays for itself in savings while covering more people, you will see this whole thing bounce right back in the other direction.

BTW&#8230;.Massachusetts has a long tradition of electing Republicans to balance out the Democrats - but you knew that already.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> ...and a health care bill passes that actually pays for itself in savings while covering more people,


Have you seen such a thing??


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I agree with Relayer here, Mr. Kleen -- among the possible motivations for voters to choose Brown over Coakley, "wanting Congressional Democrats to pass their agenda more vigorously" doesn't strike me as a particularly satisfactory explanation. 

For one thing, it just got a lot harder to fulfill that desire. Your analysis seems like it makes no sense. 

It does, however, sound an awful lot like what YOU would like to see happen. It sounds like you are describing your feelings about these events, not the feelings of most other voters. But you know what they say ... projection ain't just a river in Egypt.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> BTW&#8230;.Massachusetts has a long tradition of electing Republicans to balance out the Democrats - but you knew that already.


Prior to last night, the last Republican US senator elected in Mass was 1976? Is that right?

Are you really trying to sell this as the good folk of Massachusetts doing this in the name of balancing Republicans and Democrats? Really?


----------



## andrewcorreia (Jan 21, 2009)

God Bless The Commonwealth of Massachusetts for voting for someone of intelligence!


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

Lived in Mass for 25 years...Mass has for a long time elected Republicans who are social moderates (many Governors). It's not surprising since I believe that Mass voters are some of the most well informed and conscientious members of the political community. If you don't like what one party is or is not doing, vote them out.

And may I throw this out to cause a little controversy...I think Massachusetts (especially Boston) is a very male dominated society. We've never elected a female governor (Jane Swift was the acting governor and drew serious scorn) or senator...


----------



## dport86 (Jan 24, 2009)

I missed the intelligence part--was that in the Cosmo write-up: Likes: Snuggling up with a good book on a shearling throw rug in front of the fireplace--NAKED! Or was it distributing the Cosmo issue to fellow law students. Well, he outsmarted us all--who knew posing naked would be good for your political career as a family-values Republican!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Hopefully this is the start of a moderate Republican revival.

But all I really have to say is..............


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> a health care bill passes that actually pays for itself in savings while covering more people


Thanks! I needed a good laugh.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The health care bill will pass before Brown's election is certified. Reid and Pelosi will make sure of that.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The health care bill will pass before Brown's election is certified. Reid and Pelosi will make sure of that.


You speak with such authority. Yet, you are so incorrect.



> Speculation had swirled in recent days that Democrats in the House and Senate may try to rush a final health care bill to the president's desk before Brown could take his seat and vote against it. Brown won a special election in Massachusetts Tuesday to fill the seat held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy for more than four decades.
> 
> "We're not going to rush into anything," _*Reid said*_. "We're going to wait until the new senator arrives to do more on health care."


Even His Wonderfulness .

You and Mr. Kleen are batting .000 on this one.

I want to hear some more about how Massachusetts voters hated Brown so much that they voted for him, and how they wanted what the Democrats were proposing sooooo much that they voted against Coakley. I never get tired of hearing that one.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The health care bill will pass before Brown's election is certified. Reid and Pelosi will make sure of that.


Wanna bet?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Phinn said:


> You and Mr. Kleen are batting .000 on this one.
> 
> I want to hear some more about how Massachusetts voters hated Brown so much that they voted for him, and how they wanted what the Democrats were proposing sooooo much that they voted against Coakley. I never get tired of hearing that one.


Keep laughing Phinn.

Reconciliation is your friend. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

As an outsider, as far as the US are concerned, why is there so much opposition to Obama's health care bill? State provided health care seems quite reasonable to me.....


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> As an outsider, as far as the US are concerned, why is there so much opposition to Obama's health care bill? State provided health care seems quite reasonable to me.....


To a certain degree we do have some state provided healthcare, or at least state subsidized. Most payments for health insurance are tax free, and the elderly and poor get Medicare/Medicaid.

However, there remains a distrust of and an expectation of incompetence from our government. Most people in this country have insurance, and those that do are overwhlemingly happy with what they have. The fear is that Unlce Sam will step in and screw that up.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> As an outsider, as far as the US are concerned, why is there so much opposition to Obama's health care bill?


There is no health care in it.

Just the bill!!


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

Cramer said if Brown won the market would take off, but instead it's been in a 2 day decline. I'm waiting for the 3 o'clock bounce to keep the market from closing too low. It'll be interesting to see if this is the tipping point that will cause Obama to take a harder stance on Wall St. and set off a bear market or if he'll do more the prop up the market and economy for the elections in November.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Jon Stewart has it all in perspective. :icon_smile:

https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-20-2010/indecision-2010---the-re-changening


----------



## SeptemberSun (Aug 19, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Jon Stewart has it all in perspective. :icon_smile:
> 
> https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-20-2010/indecision-2010---the-re-changening


...And he is a sharp dresser:aportnoy:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Chouan said:


> As an outsider, as far as the US are concerned, why is there so much opposition to Obama's health care bill? State provided health care seems quite reasonable to me.....





agnash said:


> To a certain degree we do have some state provided healthcare, or at least state subsidized. Most payments for health insurance are tax free, and the elderly and poor get Medicare/Medicaid.
> 
> However, there remains a distrust of and an expectation of incompetence from our government. Most people in this country have insurance, and those that do are overwhlemingly happy with what they have. The fear is that Unlce Sam will step in and screw that up.


Agree with Agnash. You have to remember, Chouan, that the US is more center-right than Europe and it's ethos was historically built on, and still centers around, individualism and the ability to achieve. Of course there are many Americans who believe in socialism, or various aspects of it, but by and large, Americans are not in favor of the government running things other than that which is necessary, i.e. the military, etc.

I think that the average American's general perception of US heathcare is that it should be available to those who truly need it and don't have it, and that things can be improved. But a sweeping overhaul that may increase the general tax burden, add additional layers of government and add to the list of those that get special treatment (Nebraska, unions) is not what most taxpayers want.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

agnash said:


> Most people in this country have insurance, and those that do are overwhlemingly happy with what they have.


I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. In your own state of Louisiana, 21% are uninsured.

Oh, right--that's still more than half who have insurance. So you're satisfied with one out of five of your neighbors not having health insurance?

Looking at the US as a whole: Yes, "most" (as in, more than 50%) of Americans have health insurance, but there are 46 million without--and that's including only US citizens and only those under age 65. This is from the Kaiser insurance empire:

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/uninsured-us-citizens/

And Medscape says it's 1 in 7 Americans: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/576773?src=mpnews&spon=34&uac=64400PY

As to whether most are "overwhelmingly happy" with their insurance, I really doubt it. Even for those of us with good insurance, it's a hassle to find a doctor who takes your plan, to make sure that whatever visit or procedure you're planning will in fact be covered, and then deal with any billing fiascos, of which there are many.

And for most of us, the share that we as employees have to pay keeps going up, because it keeps rising for our employers. And that's for those of us with full-time jobs that offer health insurance.

Whatever one thinks of the House and Senate proposals for health care reform, it's clear that the situation we have now--where costs keep going up for those with insurance and those without go to the ER for everything--is not tenable.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Does this however, leave us to conclude that Senator (elect) Brown's victory is primarily a result of the health care debate. I think not. As I said in an earlier post, my sense is these election results are more of an indication that voting Americans are fed up with the reality that their elected representatives are more inclined to listen to third party interest groups and not to the members of their electorate! May we conclude that positive change is afoot? :icon_scratch:


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Does this however, leave us to conclude that Senator (elect) Brown's victory is primarily a result of the health care debate. I think not. As I said in an earlier post, my sense is these election results are more of an indication that voting Americans are fed up with the reality that their elected representatives are more inclined to listen to third party interest groups and not to the members of their electorate! May we conclude that positive change is afoot? :icon_scratch:


Whether it's positive or negative depends on your political bent, of course.

I don't think any serious person could argue that there are not plenty of interest groups with their finger in the pie on either side, however. Whether these are third parties trying to exert undue influence or simply groups of like-minded Americans pooling their resources to maiximize their first-amendment right is also in the eye of the beholder.

But I don't think the MA election actually hinged on that. I'm not an expert in MA politics, but I think that election signaled either that many Dems didn't vote or that the mostly white skilled laborers there are still feeling like not enough is being done to resuscitate the job market. And I think the fact that the Dems ran a woman may well have made a difference--as did the fact that Brown seems very likable.

In recent years, it seems like whichever candidate comes off as most personable, that candidate has won--e.g., Obama vs. McCain, Bush vs. Gore, Clinton vs. Bush I, Reagan vs. Mondale.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

I believe he won because Coakley was a part of the Massachussetts liberal/Kennedy elitist crowd who are out of touch with regular people....Coakley was obviously way too cocky in her comments during the campaign.....for example that "Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan" comment was ridiculous


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

Bermuda said:


> I believe he won because Coakley was a part of the Massachussetts liberal/Kennedy elitist crowd who are out of touch with regular people....Coakley was obviously way too cocky in her comments during the campaign.....for example that "Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan" comment was ridiculous


Elitism is bad? Let me tell you, I _want_ an intellectual elite running the show at any given level of government. Last thing I want is Homer Simpson for a president.

I don't live in MA, so I can't say for sure why he won. Maybe she did come off poorly.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> Elitism is bad? Let me tell you, I _want_ an intellectual elite running the show at any given level of government. Last thing I want is Homer Simpson for a president.
> 
> I don't live in MA, so I can't say for sure why he won. Maybe she did come off poorly.


The intellectual elites throughout history are often the worst for leading a country. Practical people with real world experience are often the best. It's not elitist or Homer, but the middle choice which is the best. Elitism throughout history usually leads to bad things...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Assuming the incumbent in a race is a career politician (having served more than two terms), I believe it safe to assume they have been bought and paid for by the special interest groups and consequently, are no longer representing the members of their electorate. In such cases, whether the opposition candidate be of the intellectual elite or even a Homer Simpson, electing the opposition candidate represents an improvement over the incumbent! Putting a 'real live' common citizen in the elective role is more likely to result in the common man's voice being heard. The professional politician, generally, hears no one other than the special interests!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Assuming the incumbent in a race is a career politician (having served more than two terms), I believe it safe to assume they have been bought and paid for by the special interest groups and consequently, are no longer representing the members of their electorate. In such cases, whether the opposition candidate be of the intellectual elite or even a Homer Simpson, electing the opposition candidate represents an improvement over the incumbent! Putting a 'real live' common citizen in the elective role is more likely to result in the common man's voice being heard. The professional politician, generally, hears no one other than the special interests!


C'mon, Eagle, you're smarter than that. And usally less cynical too. Sticking the local yokel in office is akin to championing Sarah Palin for Prez....ooops, I may be in raw nerve territory here.
​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

*AscotWithShortSleeves*

^ I think the most reasoned voice in the Interchange threads currently running is this guy.​


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

Gosh, thanks, P&P! (That check is in the mail. )

Maybe now's a good time to mention I'm voting Lyndon LaRouche in 2012.

Just kidding, folks.


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Assuming the incumbent in a race is a career politician (having served more than two terms), I believe it safe to assume they have been bought and paid for by the special interest groups ... Putting a 'real live' common citizen in the elective role is more likely to result in the common man's voice being heard. The professional politician, generally, hears no one other than the special interests!


You raise a fair point about special interests (and your post seems plenty smart to me)--but it's such a murky issue as to what constitutes a special interest. I think most people (me included) call a group a special interest if they don't agree with the cause that group is advancing.

I think we all are hoping (for any future election) that we are offered a candidate who is elite in terms of intelligence, creative policy ideas, and achievement but who is not elite in terms of having his/her interests so aligned with any powerful group that he/she is beholden to that group.

Perhaps we have elected such people from time to time. A bipartisan (or at least not controversial) example would be Teddy Roosevelt. I can think of more recent examples, but I'm not going to sow the seeds of flame-war acrimony.

A very thought-provoking and well-reasoned book on this is "In Defense of Elitism," by the late William Henry.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

when I used the term Massachussetts "elite", I meant these establishment figures (Democrats) that think they have the election in the bag (Coakley) because they are friends with the Kennedys, etc. and think that the Scott Brown Republicans are lower than them and could never win in the most Liberal of states like MA!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> Elitism is bad? Let me tell you, I _want_ an intellectual elite running the show at any given level of government. Last thing I want is Homer Simpson for a president.
> 
> I don't live in MA, so I can't say for sure why he won. Maybe she did come off poorly.


And, of course, there are only two categories of people: 'intellectual elites' and 'Homer Simpsons'?! ic12337:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nick.mccann said:


> The intellectual elites throughout history are often the worst for leading a country. Practical people with real world experience are often the best. It's not elitist or Homer, but the middle choice which is the best. Elitism throughout history usually leads to bad things...


^. This.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> C'mon, Eagle, you're smarter than that. And usally less cynical too. Sticking the local yokel in office is akin to championing Sarah Palin for Prez....ooops, I may be in raw nerve territory here.
> ​


Naw!! As I posted in an earlier thread, my dream ticket is O'Reilly and Beck...will hold those Liberals in check. Has a nice ring to it, eh?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. In your own state of Louisiana, 21% are uninsured.
> 
> Oh, right--that's still more than half who have insurance. So you're satisfied with one out of five of your neighbors not having health insurance?
> 
> ...


From your own links, only 35 million of the unisured are legally in the United States, and would count towards the new insurance. Agains from your link, 1/3 of the unisured could afford to buy insurance but choose not to. Of course, they would no longer be allowed to make that choice with Obamacare. If your Medscape number is correct, then 85% of all Americans have health insurance. MSNBC says 73% of those with health insurance are happy with their coverage and access. According to CNN 80% are happy with their coverage. Fox News goes higher with 89% happey with their insuance.

I am not satisfied with 1 in 5 of my neighbors going without health insurance, but I didn't see anything in the healthcare bills that would address the real porblems in the health insurance market without expolsive growth in our national debt, or in taxes, or in both. As long as we pay for hip replacement surgery for people who are dying of old age, our health system will remain broken.

I have a grandmother, she has had several strokes. After her last one, we thought it was the end. She has a living will, no extraordinary measures were taken, but she recovered on her own. And then every specialist in the state of Louisisana stopped by her room to feed at the public trough. They even sent an employment rehabilitation specialist. The woman has been retired for 20 years, and lives in assisted car, but who knows, maybe she was going to get so well that she would want to open a new business.

As long as we spend 50% of lifetime healthcare costs after a person retires, we will have a healthcare system that is broken. You get a researcher to create a blue pill to get Pop Pop's willy to rise again, cause Medicare will cover and old people vote.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Timely and Relevant ... "Intellectuals and Society" in 5 parts:

https://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MWYyOWMzOTgyZjgxYjk2ZWYzZTRkMTA5ZmU5NmEzZmY=

https://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=Y2FhYzIxOThhNTUwOWNlNDgzNjkzZmIzMjgxOWI0NmY=

https://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NTBhYmE2MDY0ZmM2YmRjN2UzODBlMGVlMGMzMjVjZDA=

https://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=OTAzMTA2OTBiOWI2MzViNzkzZWQzN2E5Y2QyMmZlOWY=

https://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=N2QxNzNmY2Y2YjA4NWIzMGRhMzk5ZGRhMTc5MmI3ZWY=


----------



## mbebeau (Feb 6, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Naw!! As I posted in an earlier thread, my dream ticket is O'Reilly and Beck...will hold those Liberals in check. Has a nice ring to it, eh?


I prefer Jefferson/Reagan. I am sure that if we dig them up, string-em up like Weekend at Bernies, and let them run things....things MIGHT actually be better. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Timely and Relevant ... "Intellectuals and Society" in 5 parts:
> 
> https://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MWYyOWMzOTgyZjgxYjk2ZWYzZTRkMTA5ZmU5NmEzZmY=
> 
> ...


Thanks for the great links!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Thanks for the great links!


You're welcome. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

A little of topic, but not worth starting a new thread


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

It always amuses me to see people rejoice about "taking the government back from the intellectual elites," or some variation thereon. Naturally, who "the elites" are depends on your party affiliation. So for Democrats it was the neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) under Bush, or and for Republicans probably Rom Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi under Obama.

What usually gets forgotten is that our Founders and the framers of our Constitution were "elites" themselves: generally wealthier and better educated than the general population. What's more, Washington, Adams and especially Hamilton had a real fear of mob rule. They were suspicious of oridinary folks' abilities to make the sort of intricate decisions required to run the State. Hence their affinity for a Roman-style republic over Athenian democracy, and the Electoral College. Jefferson, famously, was more of a populist, but even he became a convert after the excesses of the French Revolution.

Of course, in this country it wasn't long before Jacksonian Democracy and the politics of the common man won-out. Or as HL Menken said:

_"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."_


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Zot! said:


> It always amuses me to see people rejoice about "taking the government back from the intellectual elites," or some variation thereon. Naturally, who "the elites" are depends on your party affiliation. So for Democrats it was the neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) under Bush, or and for Republicans probably Rom Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi under Obama.
> 
> What usually gets forgotten is that our Founders and the framers of our Constitution were "elites" themselves: generally wealthier and better educated than the general population. What's more, Washington, Adams and especially Hamilton had a real fear of mob rule. They were suspicious of oridinary folks' abilities to make the sort of intricate decisions required to run the State. Hence their affinity for a Roman-style republic over Athenian democracy, and the Electoral College. Jefferson, famously, was more of a populist, but even he became a convert after the excesses of the French Revolution.
> 
> ...


The Neocons have been called intellectual elites? I missed that!

I don't know anyone that considers Pelosi either an intellectual or elite. Rahm either really.

You're right, of course, that the founders were educated property owners, but intellectual elites I think means more academics and professional pundits that are not accomplishing anything; Obama is an intellectual elilte. He has no real experience; no accomplishments; yet he feels entitled to talk down to other people and thinks he has the answers. The last year he has demonstrated his ignorance and inexperience; yet he still blames others - even The People. He keeps inferring 'we don't get it' instead of realizing that 'he doesn't get it'. He's been coddled by institutions that have not told him how stupid his ideas are instead they have wondered at the audacity of them.

I would feel a little better if the so-called elites knew things like we do not live in a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic. Not to pick on you, but say Barney Frank this last week decrying that 60 votes is not democratic! Well, no kidding, Barney.

We are all amused by different things.


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Obama is an intellectual elilte. He has no real experience; no accomplishments; yet he feels entitled to talk down to other people and thinks he has the answers.


I try to keep an open mind, but statements like this make it somewhat difficult to take the rest of what you say seriously. For example:

"Obama has no accomplishments": Well, being elected President of the US is an "accomplishment" by a lot of peoples' definition, but setting that aside, Mr. Obama was also elected a senator and a state legislator. Prior to that, Mr. Obama was a graduate of Harvard Law School, a lawyer and a professor at the University of Chicago. Now, you may not care much for lawyers (a lot of people don't), but getting through law school and passing the bar exam by itself is no easy task. Also, they don't hand-out professorships at the University of Chicago (hardly a bastion of liberalism, btw) like candy. At any rate, his prior legislative experience is roughly eqaual to Abraham Lincoln, whom I doubt you consider lacking in accomplishment.

The last part of the excerpted statement is, I feel, most indicative of what is wrong with political discourse in our society:

_"he feels entitled to talk down to other people and thinks he has the answers"_

Can you give me an example of where President Obama has (a) spoken down to other people or (b) expressed his opinion that he is "entitled" to do so? Similarly, can you direct me to an occasion where Mr. Obama opined that "he had all the answers?" In fact, unless you know Mr. Obama personally and have spent a great deal of time around him, I doubt you can realistically back-up these assertions.

It may surprise a lot of conservatives to learn that most Democrats considered our last President to be dishonest, unqualified, and an arrogant phony as well. Liberal rants to this effect did little to sway conservative opinion about him, yet most conservatives today seem to think that such claims against the current President have the effect of Gabriel's horn. They don't.

You may disagree with Mr. Obama's handling of the economy, and his domestic policy. Those are legitimate concerns. But so long as the political debate in this country remains mired at the level of _ad hominem _attacks, I don't hold-out much hope that things are going to improve any time soon.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

Zot! said:


> ..._"he feels entitled to talk down to other people and thinks he has the answers"_
> 
> Can you give me an example of where President Obama has (a) spoken down to other people or (b) expressed his opinion that he is "entitled" to do so? ...


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

thunderw21 said:


>


 :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

thunderw21 said:


>


And this is an example of the above in what sense? Nowhere in that clip did I hear the words, "You're wrong because I know better than you." All this appears to be is the President urging Congres to enact legislation countering a ruling by the court, something Congresses of both parties have done multiple times in our history. Even LBJ requested Congress enact legislation countering the _Miranda_ case, which it did, though that particular statute has never been used.

At any rate, Republicans certainly had no problem with disagreeing with the Supreme Court until they appointed the majority of judges on on it. But, the conservative right has by this point become so polemical it's a waste to even bother pointing that out. Rather, they resort to a rather simple tactic: If a Republican politician criticizes a ruling perceived to favor liberals the _court_ was arrogant and deserves it, if a Democrat criticizes a ruling perceived to be conservative, well then the _politician_ is the arrogant one and he should just let the courts do their job! It's a rigged game that isn't worth playing.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

Zot! said:


> And this is an example of the above in what sense? Nowhere in that clip did I hear the words, "You're wrong because I know better than you." All this appears to be is the President urging Congres to enact legislation countering a ruling by the court, something Congresses of both parties have done multiple times in our history. Even LBJ requested Congress enact legislation countering the _Miranda_ case, which it did, though that particular statute has never been used.
> 
> ...


You don't question SCOTUS during the State of the Union. This is considered one of the most dignified events in American governance, a night when politics is supposed to be more or less put aside. It's for commenting on how the nation is doing as a whole, not for throwing poo at SCOTUS.



> Nowhere in that clip did I hear the words, "You're wrong because I know better than you."


How about this?

https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

thunderw21 said:


> How about this?
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


Article~
"How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on *contraceptives*?" Boehner asked. "How does that *stimulate *the economy?"

Boehner said congressional Republicans are also concerned about the *size* of the *package*.

"Government can't solve this problem," he said.

Reid said a Congressional Budget Office report that says the stimulus funds won't be *pumped* into the economy until 2010 doesn't provide an accurate picture.

:crazy:


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Article~
> "How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on *contraceptives*?" Boehner asked. "How does that *stimulate *the economy?"
> 
> Boehner said congressional Republicans are also concerned about the *size* of the *package*.
> ...


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

While watching the President's State of The Union address last evening, I got the impression that he may well have heard the voters in Massachusetts and was responding accordingly. But he was, alas, a man crying out in the wilderness with many (Republicans and Democrats alike) failing to hear him and steadfastly ignoring his plea for unity in the public interest! It seems it remains for us, to remove the garbage from office, if there is to be substantial hope for our beloved Republic's future.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ...he was, alas, a man crying out in the wilderness with many (Republicans and Democrats alike) failing to hear him and steadfastly ignoring his plea for unity in the public interest!


My dupa!!

He hasn't even listened to himself!!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> While watching the President's State of The Union address last evening, I got the impression that he may well have heard the voters in Massachusetts and was responding accordingly. But he was, alas, a man crying out in the wilderness with many (Republicans and Democrats alike) failing to hear him and steadfastly ignoring his plea for unity in the public interest! It seems it remains for us, to remove the garbage from office, if there is to be substantial hope for our beloved Republic's future.


Yep; "detached" was what I thought too.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> My dupa!!
> .....


LOL! I hear that a lot from my wife. Are you perchance of Polish descent? :thumbs-up:


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

thunderw21 said:


> You don't question SCOTUS during the State of the Union. This is considered one of the most dignified events in American governance, a night when politics is supposed to be more or less put aside. It's for commenting on how the nation is doing as a whole, not for throwing poo at SCOTUS.
> 
> How about this?
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


I'll agree that it didn't come off as well as he probably hoped. But saying the State of the Union is a night where politics is "set aside" is sort of like saying the Yankee Stadium isn't really a baseball venue. The State of the Union has been the President's main forum for introducing policy since Franklin Roosevelt introduced the tradition of giving the address in front of a both houses of congress.

As for the link, saying "I won" at that time (roughly one year ago) was hardly the equivalent of saying "I know better than you." Rather, it was a statement of fact that in the preceeding election, the voters had a choice between the Republican candidate, their party and their policies, and the President and his party's policies. The voters overwhelmingly picked the President and his party. Under those circumstances it would have been arrogance on the _Republicans_' part to divine those results as an endorsement for the status quo. Presently, circumstances have obviously changed. But the quote excerpted is hardly an example of the President stating he "knows better" than everybody else.

The larger point is that while majority of conservatives often accuse Democrats of being "blind followers" of Obama, the opposite has become equally true for them: they are simply set on disliking the man, and will read whatever they want into what into what he says and does in order to fit their preconceived notion of him as some sort of nefarious figure. You can't argue with fanaticism.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Zot! said:


> You can't argue with fanaticism.


No, just make excuses for it and apologize to them!!


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

AscotWithShortSleeves said:


> Looking at the US as a whole: Yes, "most" (as in, more than 50%) of Americans have health insurance, but there are 46 million without--and that's including only US citizens and only those under age 65. This is from the Kaiser insurance empire:
> 
> https://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/uninsured-us-citizens/
> .


You're wrong. Go back and read your own link. The 46 million includes non-citizens. You need to multiply that number by .79.

Among other problems with these kinds of reports, these figures also don't make it clear whether the alleged 20% of uninsured who are supposedly children are uninsured becasue they don't qualify, or becasue their parents don't avail themselves of government/private insurance coverage that is available. The statistics also don't address the percentage of the population that doesn't have insurance becasue they choose not to insure (regardless of income) - which was my case from the ages of 23-29, when I was working on my graduate degrees.

The system is not perfect and it needs remedial action, but I find these figures which seem to allege that 1/5 to 1/6 of our populations is desperately seeking medical insurance coverage and can't get it to be alarmist and laughable.


----------

