sssh - you're ruining Cam's simplistic argument that he crafted to prove his POV.

As I said before, I'm very surprised that Obama is going to show up. There must be a lot of panic in Washington over these poll numbers.

If Brown wins, it will be interesting to see if there's any chicanery by the Democrats over certification to try to push the health care bill through before he is sworn in. Massachusetts Democrats obviously have a bit of a recent history of doing the politically expedient thing over the right thing.

Given all the shit the GOP pulled with Franken they deserve the karma.

Maybe he didn't find it necessary earlier. And while the race has tightened up, it might look a little tacky to be campaigning for someone during these times (especially now with what's going on in Haiti). I'm sure there is political reasons behind it, but it's a no-win situation for him.

Aren't we spending trillions in the Middle East to prevent the deaths of 3,000 people in New York and Washington D.C.?

Perhaps there is some guilt for the fact that we, along with the French, put them in this position politically and economically. You can't essentially rape a country for the better part of their existence and then scorn them for not being as advanced politically as others.

I agree with everything but the health care worker line. The way it was worded was horrible by her, but she's still got a point. If you can't seperate your religion from being a health care worker on the job, you shouldn't do it.

Actually, the Senate has already passed a bill. If Brown wins, the pressure will be on the House to pass the bill "as-is," rather than modifying/adjusting it. If they change it and kick it back to the Senate w/ 41 GOPers, it will almost certainly be radically changed or killed. It will be some interesting politics if Brown wins.

So Brown would vote against the bill? Didn't he vote for the plan that forced people in Mass to get health care?

I'm not sure...he may have. But his attitude now is "well we have it so who cares about the other states" and "I'm elected to look out for the people of Massachusetts."

Both of which are pretty shortsighted IMO.

Have you paid attention to the U.S. Senate over the past 15-years or so?

In other news, MBBF's wishes have been granted: Obama will be campaigning with Coakley this weekend.

It's a tough situation due to conflict of religious freedoms and the laws that protect employees from being hired/fired or discriminated on religion.

Not to mention she brought it up in a state that has a strong Catholic presence. To me, it was Joe Biden moment.

In good news (for Democrats), it looks like the Tea Party is trying to take over the GOP: In Power Push, Movement Sees Base in G.O.P. - NYTimes.com

Having said that, the more I read about the tactics the Tea Party is taking with the machinery of the GOP system, the more it reminds me of the rise of the "netroots", that greatly influenced the Democratic Party, starting in, say, 2003/2004.

I should clarify. I meant in the sense that after initially trading only in outrage, they decided to figure out how the machinery of their party actually worked, and then worked it to get the candidates they wanted.

Interesting news out today that Limbaugh isnt backing away from his statements about Haiti. Interesting and one could see a real turn in the tide of the GOP in their allowing him to be their mouthpiece.


/MBBF

It's not a tough situation though. If you can't handle the requirements of the job, you shouldn't be working it. If you refuse to work on the Sabbath, the NFL is probably not the career choice for you.

She worded it poorly but her premise is right. You shouldn't be a doctor if you can't treat patients.

Wanted to keep this out of the Haiti thread, but here's Beck:


How the hell do these people run the GOP?

Well, I know it's crazy talk to suggest this, but Limbaugh, Beck, et al don't run the GOP. I know, they control a block of voters within it, a particularly vocal (and I would argue mouthbreathing) sort, but just a block. At the moment, it is a fairly influential block as they've been trying to purge everyone else, but, again, still a block.

(How pissed are you right now if you're Bill O'Reilly? You spent years clawing your way to be #2 and trying to dethrone Rush and this little putz comes along and steals your thunder.)

SI

I don't think there's any doubt that Beck and Limbaugh are the two most important voices in the GOP right now. Just try to find one GOP elected official willing to criticize either of them. They have far more control over the GOP agenda than anyone else.

They do a great job of getting people pissed off and voting against their own interests and for the Republicans who will come into office with the promise of change and less government in our lives. Then the Republican lawmakers and Beck, Limbaugh, etc will support all sorts of intrusive measures into our lives socially and eventually economically and the Republicans will eventually get voted out of office. Rinse, repeat...

Glenn Beck used to actually be a pretty decent voice of liberty (he frequently talked about government being run by corporate and elite money interests) and then he got the full time gig at Fox News and I guess their corporate sponsors didn't care much for it and so now he is just anti-Obama.

I kind of shrug them both off as they have found a niche to make a lot of money and it’s not like anyone is forcing anyone to listen to them. It is their adamant supporters that really worry me. Including a friend of mine who has a family of 5 and an income of about 50K who swears by these guys and their "family values" message. It really is astounding sometimes!

A doctor or health care worker should be required to perform abortions (and I'm pro-choice here)? What about patients who demand free treatment from doctors, only then later to threaten to sue if something goes wrong (or if they get billed)?

Is there a reason I was mentioned in a post that has nothing to do with anything I've said? Just a token mention of me to keep me in the public limelight or something?

it's the format of the post I made, I took it from your book so wanted to give credit where it was due.

Hope someone else here has happened to notice the guy that keeps falling asleep during Obama's church speech this morning. He's dozed out at least twice already, woke up & yawned, then went back out again.

awesome, not watching but that is awesome.

Interesting NYT Op-Ed on the "Tea Party" movement and the G.O.P.

Op-Ed Columnist - The Great Tea Party Rip-Off - NYTimes.com

I think you misread it. Rich was talking about the Republican party scamming the Tea Party movement... it actually appeared to be a decent take on the movement, but some Republicans were scamming it for their own good rather than being a part of the movement.

nah...that's what i meant...probably just didn't give it the right sort of lead-in since i was in a hurry. there...fixed.

Well the issue surrounds emergency care workers, not private practices. If a private practice does not want to perform a procedure they should not have to. But if a patient comes into a hospital with an issue where their life is in danger and aborting the baby is the best chance at survival, I expect the doctor to perform the procedure. Health care should be what is in the best interest of the patient, not the doctor.

And this is only for emergency care in my opinion (or publically owned clinics). It's just dangerous to let doctors decide in these situations what and who they want to treat. Can a Muslim doctor state he won't treat Jews in the ER for religuous reasons? How about a Scientologist who wants to bring his e-meter to work when you come in with severe headaches?

This whole thing isn't over abortion though, it's over contraception. If a patient wants birth control, shouldn't a doctor offer up their options? Isn't that sort of the principle behind being a doctor?

The actual issue (in MA if that's what we're talking about) is that hospitals are required to have at least one person on duty at all times who is willing to perform abortions or provide emergency contraceptives. Doctors/nurses etc. are free to opt-out on religious or ethical grounds, but hospitals just have to have someone available (at least as far as i understand it, although to be honest i haven't read up on it too much...seems like a no-brainer)

The gaffe by Coakley seemed to be about birth control and not abortion. I believe in regards to doctors giving Plan B to rape victims. Here is what I found as the part that got her:

No no...I think it is with regard to contraceptives...I just wasn't sure whether the original statement was about abortion at all or not. But the "controversy" is definitely about contraceptives. And yeah that was a gaffe by Martha saying you probably shouldn't work in an emergency room...yeah. But AFAIK the law just says there has to be one person working to make it available...not that everyone has to be 100% behind it.

If Obama advisors are correct, we're in for a shocking special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday. CNN is leaking information that Obama advisers believe she will be defeated by Brown........

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Sources: Obama advisers believe Coakley will lose « - Blogs from CNN.com

Early results are in, our first pay with Obama-tax and it's going to be about 1K less take home this year.

Way to stimulate that economy...

i'd be severely disappointed in my state here if that was the case. contributing to the total-gridlock of Washington and ensuring that nothing gets done for the rest of this administration would be a pathetic outcome from this election.

i can't imagine the voters in this state voting for Brown just based on his social policies though. And I think if they do they'll be in for a rude awakening as he continues to tack to the right in order not to be tea-bagged by the GOP in future electoral cycles.

Fucking shameful.

Then again, Coakley has really run a piece-of-shit campaign. She was never my top choice in the primary, and she solidified my "meh" feeling about her in the general election.

Still...I can't imagine them blowing this...I'll have to abstain from watching political things on tv and visiting this thread for the next couple YEARS just to avoid all the crowing and haughtiness from the right.

I don't think Brown is that bad. His social policies are not that far to the right either. He's actually a really moderate Republican who will probably be called a RINO and blasted by the GOP within a few months in office. I mean I think the writing of bills on gay marriage is a bit odd, but his overall stance is no different than Obama's for the most part.

I don't think you've got much to worry about really, seems more like using a worst case scenario in order to rally the voters than a genuine threat.

And after she wins by 3-5 points, we'll hear how it was a mandate for the current health care deform package.

It seems like a clusterfuck of PR stunts. Kind of a fun election to watch and I really don't think anyone has a handle on how this will turn out.

You had Coakley with an inevitable seat. Some polls showing her support wasn't all that strong. The GOP capitalized on that and really pushed how Coakley was in danger. Some other polls came up showing it closer or Brown with a small lead. Then the right put out a fake poll showing Brown up huge which really got everyone thinking the upset could happen. The Left fought back a little and started taking it serious. Now they're pushing this "the seat might be lost" PR to see if it gets Dems out to the polls thinking they might lose the seat.

Saturday, I got phone calls from someone in Martha Coakley's office, Bill Clinton, President Obama, Curt Schilling, Scott Brown's daughter, an actual live human urging me to vote, a couple more I can't remember and several more I never answered.

Nearly every ad on the TV or radio is about the Senate race.

I live in MA so our elections are rarely anything but a formality. Is it normally like this in other states in the run-up to an election? I have never seen my phone ring like it did on Saturday.

That's a good question - I've never seen this level of fervor in MA before. Is this typical of some other states? If so I can see why you all dread it...it's frankly just irritating.

My mother counted something like 5 political commericals on Friday between the end of the local news and the start of the national news.

Latest poll out shows a 5 point lead for Brown. It's still within the margin of error, but just barely. Obama's advisers may know something the rest of us don't know.

Good lord. You obviously haven't lived in a swing state during a presidential election year. Non-stop advertisements for at least 6-8 months. It's unbearable, but at least you know your vote matters.

ugh. i feel for you.

Another trend analysis by 538.......

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Trendspotting in Massachusetts

Presidential, no (whee irrelevant state). State & congressional level is painful in Illinois, however. It's pretty much nonstop negative campaign ads for several months leading into the election.

Like MBBF said, you really haven't done this before apparently.

It's not unusual in Atlanta for virtually every commercial in a local news to be political during campaign season. Every spot during the daytime soaps, virtually every spot in primetime. A Senate race in a Presidential year is probably the worst, the combination makes it wall to wall from about 5a until at least midnight. It literally gets to the point that they have a hard time separating the commercials for the same office in primary season to keep them from running back to back.

see at that point I just stop tuning them out. they stop having any effect on me.

NY had Patterson commercials starting in December. The NYC local news had a roughly three week break between 09 political commercials and the start of 10 commercials.

But they still impact a large number of people, not limited to but including: those who weren't watching during the previous commercial break, those who weren't paying attention during the previous commercial break, and those who may have seen the other candidate's spot last.

Somewhat interestingly maybe, this really doesn't seem like anything new to me. I can remember many times when the commercial separation issue was a problem back during my local radio days. Start throwing county & city level races into the mix along with state legislative seats along with federal offices and it got ridiculous in a hurry. Now this is back in the mid-80's into the early/mid 90's and I can definitely remember reaching the point where for hours at a time it was "play one three minute song and play 3 minutes of commercials, rinse & repeat", we were shortening newscasts in order to create extra inventory in the hour, etc. One of the advantages I guess to being at an exurban station that wasn't dependent on ratings data for sales.

Two new polls out. Pajamas Media poll shows a 10 point lead for Brown.

Roger L. Simon » Sunday PJM/CrossTarget Poll: Brown up 9.6% among likely voters

Politico poll shows a 9 point lead for Brown.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM13...mass_poll.html