The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[CamEdwards]

On a slightly related note, a new Suffolk University poll in MA has Scott Brown up by 4 over Martha Coakley. This is simply stunning. Support for the healthcare plan in MA (according to the poll) is at 36% with disapproval at 51%. (This, btw, in a poll with 15% of the respondents as Republicans)

Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race - BostonHerald.com

I still can't fathom Brown winning next Tuesday, but I'm curious what the Massachusetts contingent thinks now that the election is less than a week away.

[RainMaker]

Nate Silver is calling it a toss-up and I'd trust his analysis over anyone's in the game. It'll be interesting to see what happens. I can see it going both ways. Republicans see the chance to steal a seat here and show up in huge force to put him over the top. On the other hand I could see the recent polls scaring Democrats into taking the election serious and showing up to save the seat.

As a neutral observer, I like seeing close races that get people involved. Hate seats that are just passed down amongst a party. Brown doesn't seem like the prototypical Republican. Has a bit of an independent streak it looks like. His stance on health care seems a tad hypocritical from previous positions, but such is politics. I think he'd be a decent choice although probably couldn't vote for him due to his bigotry toward homosexuals.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just saw GOP Rep. Shadegg is retiring. Does this men the GOP can see the writing on the wall?

Was he behind in polling numbers for reelection? Given the current political climate, I doubt it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

On the other hand I could see the recent polls scaring Democrats into taking the election serious and showing up to save the seat.

That portion of the Herald article noting that 60%+ think that Coakley will win is pretty interesting. I'm not sure what the exact party breakdown is, but my guess is that there's some GOP voters in that number who also think the race is Coakley's that may be surprised this morning to find out otherwise. It could easily energize the GOP base to come out as well knowing that the Dem. majority in Massachusetts isn't as solid for this election.

Either way, it looks like we're going to see a ton of coverage of this race in the upcoming days.

Anyone else notice that Obama hasn't gone to Massachusetts yet to back Coakley? This seems to stand in stark contrast to his statements yesterday that he would back the Democrat candidates in any way necessary next November. There was someone on the local news this morning mentioning that Obama may not want to back Coakley and risk further damage to his coattails (though I'd argue that damage has already been done).

[JPhillips]

I think all the MA polls are suspect because nobody has a clear read on who will actually vote. There's another poll out today that has Coakley up by 8. Off year elections are hard enough to predict, but this special election in this environment is going to leave a lot of pollsters with egg on their face.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think all the MA polls are suspect because nobody has a clear read on who will actually vote. There's another poll out today that has Coakley up by 8. Off year elections are hard enough to predict, but this special election in this environment is going to leave a lot of pollsters with egg on their face.

Just for the record, I think Coakley will win. But I think it's pretty clear that this will be a telling result as to the political climate change from one year ago no matter who wins.

[JPhillips]

I don't think there's any doubt that enthusiasm is on the side of the Republicans, but I don't think you can read too much into any single race. NY-23 didn't forecast this race, so I'm not sure this race forecasts November. At some point the local candidates have to be important factors and Coakley comes off as an uninspiring party hack IMO.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think it will be difficult for Obama to campaign here with everything going on in Haiti. That would look worse than not coming, in my opinion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

On a slightly related note, a new Suffolk University poll in MA has Scott Brown up by 4 over Martha Coakley. This is simply stunning. Support for the healthcare plan in MA (according to the poll) is at 36% with disapproval at 51%. (This, btw, in a poll with 15% of the respondents as Republicans)

Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race - BostonHerald.com

I still can't fathom Brown winning next Tuesday, but I'm curious what the Massachusetts contingent thinks now that the election is less than a week away.

I'll believe it when it happens.

The Herald is also the righter of the two daily papers (and the smaller).

I wonder if the questions in that Suffolk poll break down why people are against the healthcare plan, or if they just lump it all together. You probably have a mix of folks here who go "we already have our own version and this will just cost us more" and "it doesn't go far enough" people.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nate Silver is calling it a toss-up and I'd trust his analysis over anyone's in the game. It'll be interesting to see what happens. I can see it going both ways. Republicans see the chance to steal a seat here and show up in huge force to put him over the top. On the other hand I could see the recent polls scaring Democrats into taking the election serious and showing up to save the seat.

As a neutral observer, I like seeing close races that get people involved. Hate seats that are just passed down amongst a party. Brown doesn't seem like the prototypical Republican. Has a bit of an independent streak it looks like. His stance on health care seems a tad hypocritical from previous positions, but such is politics. I think he'd be a decent choice although probably couldn't vote for him due to his bigotry toward homosexuals.

Independent? He voted with Republican leadership 96% of the time.

And I think his stance against homosexuals and particularly also votes to hold-the-line or cut education spending will end up hurting him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That portion of the Herald article noting that 60%+ think that Coakley will win is pretty interesting. I'm not sure what the exact party breakdown is, but my guess is that there's some GOP voters in that number who also think the race is Coakley's that may be surprised this morning to find out otherwise. It could easily energize the GOP base to come out as well knowing that the Dem. majority in Massachusetts isn't as solid for this election.

Either way, it looks like we're going to see a ton of coverage of this race in the upcoming days.

Anyone else notice that Obama hasn't gone to Massachusetts yet to back Coakley? This seems to stand in stark contrast to his statements yesterday that he would back the Democrat candidates in any way necessary next November. There was someone on the local news this morning mentioning that Obama may not want to back Coakley and risk further damage to his coattails (though I'd argue that damage has already been done).

dude have you watched the news? there was a fucking earthquake that decimated hati! i'd say that's a little more important than this one race. The party sent senior political operatives here...unfortunately that's probably the best they will do.

Bill Clinton was supposed to come to town also...not sure if that will happen now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And I think his stance against homosexuals and particularly also votes to hold-the-line or cut education spending will end up hurting him.

I think the fact that he holds firm to those stances and still has a chance to win a Senate seat in Massachusetts is incredible. If you told someone what you just posted and they were unaware of the poll data, there's no way you would think he would be within 25 points of the Democrat candidate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

dude have you watched the news? there was a fucking earthquake that decimated hati! i'd say that's a little more important than this one race.

Is Obama running the cleanup effort? At maximum, that's taking up 15 minutes of his time each day. Let's not be silly here.

[JPhillips]

Just went through the marginals of the Suffolk poll. People are so damned inconsistent. Most like the MA healthcare law, but most also think MA can't afford it. Some percentage of people that favor national healthcare also favor Brown.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just went through the marginals of the Suffolk poll. People are so damned inconsistent. Most like the MA healthcare law, but most also think MA can't afford it. Some percentage of people that favor national healthcare also favor Brown.

Perhaps some of you east coasters (or Mass. residents) can help me out a bit. How, if any, will the Massachusetts health care process be affected by the national law if passed? My guess is that things will change very little in Mass. compared to most states, but that's merely a guess. Hence the reason I'm asking.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Is Obama running the cleanup effort? At maximum, that's taking up 15 minutes of his time each day. Let's not be silly here.

No, but I do think he's spending a decent amount of time trying to get money and coordinating with the people on the ground with how to spend it and how best he can help.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

No, but I do think he's spending a decent amount of time trying to get money and coordinating with the people on the ground with how to spend it and how best he can help.

SI

If our president can't delegate that responsibility out to his staff, we've got far worse problems than we ever imagined. I'm going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a better leader than that. I'm almost sure of it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Is Obama running the cleanup effort? At maximum, that's taking up 15 minutes of his time each day. Let's not be silly here.

and yet if he came here you'd be crowing about how he has better things to be doing and should be worrying about them.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

This is one of the more moronic side discussions we've had here. You really think Obama campaigning would be politically expedient for him with what's going on?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is one of the more moronic side discussions we've had here. You really think Obama campaigning would be politically expedient for him with what's going on?

I think the reality is that he realizes it would be politically a disaster and is just upset that somebody in the administration was smart enough to realize that too and make the correct decision, thus depriving him of an easy target.

[panerd]

Haiti is now a huge matter of national importance for our country's leader? Wow you guys sure drink the stateist kool-aid! You have to be kidding right? I agree with MBBF if Obama spends more than 10 minutes of his own time on this it would be the equivalent of McCain suspending his campaign for the economic downtrun.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is one of the more moronic side discussions we've had here. You really think Obama campaigning would be politically expedient for him with what's going on?

You're absolutely right. It's probably best that he doesn't go up there anyway. He could actually hurt Coakley's chances at this point.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Haiti is now a huge matter of national importance for our country's leader? Wow you guys sure drink the stateist kool-aid! You have to be kidding right? I agree with MBBF if Obama spends more than 10 minutes of his own time on this it would be the equivalent of McCain suspending his campaign for the economic downtrun.

Guess that really shouldn't surprise me...as a libertarian you do seem to have this staunch isolationist standpoint (much like the platform of the party although i'm sure there are differences) and your reaction is probably "oh well it didn't happen to us...let's pull back and defend our borders and let all the people in Hati just fend for themselves."

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm only speaking politically, panerd. I agree that Obama is not currently pulling people from the rubble.

Thanks for the gratis condescension, though. Next time see if you can work sheeple in there.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Haiti is now a huge matter of national importance for our country's leader? Wow you guys sure drink the stateist kool-aid! You have to be kidding right? I agree with MBBF if Obama spends more than 10 minutes of his own time on this it would be the equivalent of McCain suspending his campaign for the economic downtrun.

Exactly. If it was an earthquake in California, there's no question that DT and Ronnie's assessment would be spot-on. In Haiti, it's an excuse at best to avoid the possible egg on Obama's face.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Guess that really shouldn't surprise me...as a libertarian you do seem to have this staunch isolationist standpoint (much like the platform of the party although i'm sure there are differences) and your reaction is probably "oh well it didn't happen to us...let's pull back and defend our borders and let all the people in Hati just fend for themselves."

Interesting that you would make a point containing nothing even remotely close to what panerd was saying. We can help Haiti to the utmost of our resources and abilities without the president spending more than 15 minutes a day getting an update on progress.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Guess that really shouldn't surprise me...as a libertarian you do seem to have this staunch isolationist standpoint (much like the platform of the party although i'm sure there are differences) and your reaction is probably "oh well it didn't happen to us...let's pull back and defend our borders and let all the people in Hati just fend for themselves."

Originally Posted by Dr. Richard Ebeling

Real Economic Reform for a Hurting Haiti
Our televisions screens have been full of those tragic pictures of the devastation and human hardship that has been caused by the earthquake in Caribbean country of Haiti.

Governments and private relief agencies are mustering their efforts to bring assistance to the survivors of this natural disaster, which may result in a death toll of possibly up to 100,000 people, according to some initial statements coming out of that country.

Private charitable agencies have historically shown themselves to have a greater degree of flexibility, creativity, and adaptability to handle these types of emergencies than governments in the context of the conditions in the affected area.

But besides that, governments - however well intentioned and helpful their relief aid may be for victims of these disasters - often start thinking "bigger thoughts" about the need and desirability of a more permanent political helping hand in the nation affected.

Such voices are already appearing in the form of former president Bill Clinton, who is now serving as the U.N. special envoy to Haiti. On the January 14, opinion page of The Washington Post, Clinton writes about "What We Can Do to Help Haiti, Now and Beyond." He calls for a join effort by "governments, businesses and private citizens" to rebuild and move Haiti on to a path of future economic growth and prosperity.

We have been reminded that Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. At a time when many countries in the less underdeveloped areas of the globe have been rising out of poverty over the last several decades, Haiti, however, is one of those countries that has continued to stagnate with a 50 percent rate of unemployment of the work force and with 80 percent of the population estimated to be living below the poverty line before the earthquake. At a time when more and more countries are becoming industrialized and economically more diversified, over 65 percent of the people in Haiti still depend upon low productivity farming for their meager standard of living.

The government, not just for decades but also for more than two centuries, has been notoriously corrupt, brutal and tyrannical. If there is any instance of Frederic Bastiat's notion of "legalized plunder," under which the powers of government are applied to steal their wealth of some for the benefit of others who are politically well connected, it is Haiti throughout its sad history.

Billions of taxpayers' dollars from the U.S. and many other countries have all gone down a huge government rat hole that has lined the pockets of the rulers and their political cronies in Haiti. And, now, President Obama has announced that U.S. taxpayers will send an additional $100 million to Haiti over the coming months and years. Unfortunately, there has been no lasting benefit and sustained improvement in the wretched conditions of the Haitian people from all this politically redistributed largess.

For its long-term improvement, Haiti needs what Adam Smith, in his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, called a "System of Natural Liberty":

1. Secure and defined private property rights for all citizens that are recognized and enforced by the police and the legal system.

2. Secure and respected civil liberties that include freedom of speech, the press, and association, with freedom of association including the right of each individual to open and operate businesses, and peacefully compete in any type of enterprise without restrictive government regulation, licensing, or controls.

3. Government activities greatly limited to those basic but essential functions of recognizing and protecting the right of each individual to his life, liberty, and honestly acquired property. This includes a system of impartial rule of law with no political favors or privileges for some at the expense and disadvantage of others.

4. Low, transparent, and predictable taxes to fund those limited governmental activities, with no fiscal bias detrimental to savings, investment, and capital formation, which are necessary ingredients for sustainable rising standards of living in the future.

5. A stable and non-inflationary monetary system.

6. Freedom of trade, with no tariffs, quotas or other regulatory restrictions on imports and exports. There also needs to be a positive attitude toward market-based foreign investments in the Haitian economy.

7. No politics of envy against "business" and the entrepreneurially successful, since it is private enterprise and creative and risk-taking businessmen in any society who are the "human engines" for growth, innovation, and competitive coordination of the economy.

While these policies can be strongly recommended to the Haitian people and those in the government of Haiti, the fact is that these are reforms that must be understood, desired, and finally implemented by the Haitians themselves. They cannot be successfully imposed on that unfortunate country by any enlightened elite in the United States or from anywhere else.

All real and lasting change has to come from within individuals, themselves, and through them for their nation as a whole.

What the Haitian people do not need and will not be helped by are people inside or outside government in other parts of the world recommending and reinforcing all the attitudes, ideas, and policies that have only succeeded in maintaining the poverty of Haiti.

In international affairs, politicians and diplomats are always talking about not sending "wrong signals" to other nations and governments in the give and take of global relationships. Proposals such as former President Clinton's represent just such wrong signals to a people who do need whatever individual and voluntary associative benevolent generosity might be mustered at the time of a great human tragedy.

The people of Haiti need some "right signals" about how out of this disaster a real recovery is possible that can lay the foundation stones for a new and prosperous Haitian economy. But those signals must not be policy ideas of more of the same failed government interventions, controls, or coerced redistributions either among the Haitian people or from the rest of the world to Haiti.

What the people of Haiti need are the individual liberty and secure property rights in an open, free market that can draw upon the creative potentials of the people themselves. No bureaucrats or politicians in either Washington, D.C. or in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince possess a fraction of the knowledge about what needs to be done - how, where or when, and for whom - that is known by the 10 million Haitian people, themselves.

Yes, they can use all the assistance that any and all men of good will may choose to provide right now, but the recovery that can begin "tomorrow" can only come about by releasing the creative energy and abilities of the Haitian people. And that means that their government and other governments need to get out of the way and not make a market-based recovery process more difficult than it has to be.
."

.

[JPhillips]

That's all well and good, but at this point Haiti doesn't have a government or a police force in any real sense. By most accounts there is no "nation" as we understand it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting that you would make a point containing nothing even remotely close to what panerd was saying. We can help Haiti to the utmost of our resources and abilities without the president spending more than 15 minutes a day getting an update on progress.

I'm sure if Obama was here campaigning for Coakley you'd be bitching about how he ought to be spending his time elsewhere doing more important things. Whether that was Hati or something else. You're just upset that he's not so you can't bash him for doing that.

It's not a matter of him being "on the ground pulling people out of the rubble." It's a matter of perception - it would be perceived (and be used as such by political opponents) as being "tacky" or "out of touch with the real world" or however else you want to label it, if he went campaigning while there's this massive disaster-relief effort going on what...700 miles from our shores. It would seem very "unpresidential" if you will.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'm sure if Obama was here campaigning for Coakley you'd be bitching about how he ought to be spending his time elsewhere doing more important things. Whether that was Hati or something else. You're just upset that he's not so you can't bash him for doing that.

So now we're arguing what I would think in situations that aren't happening? I certainly understand your frustration, but your defensiveness is misplaced. Feel free to continue to discuss things that aren't happening. I'm going to discuss what is happening and how it relates to current events.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

As far as the MA Senate race goes, I'm pretty excited to see how it ends up. Even Nate Silver referred to it as a "toss-up" earlier today. Still unsure which way I'll vote, but Coakley botched this terribly. She is not a particularly enthralling candidate in the first place and has acted like the seat is an entitlement. At the very least, it's nice to see the Dems actually have to fight for something up here.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So now we're arguing what I would think in situations that aren't happening? I certainly understand your frustration, but your defensiveness is misplaced. Feel free to continue to discuss things that aren't happening. I'm going to discuss what is happening and how it relates to current events.

that's not what you're doing. you're discussing hypothetical reasons for why he isn't up here campaigning.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

that's not what you're doing. you're discussing hypothetical reasons for why he isn't up here campaigning.

Really? You think it's hypothetical? If you do, you're far more out of touch with the political climate than most. We'll just agree to disagree.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

As far as the MA Senate race goes, I'm pretty excited to see how it ends up. Even Nate Silver referred to it as a "toss-up" earlier today. Still unsure which way I'll vote, but Coakley botched this terribly. She is not a particularly enthralling candidate in the first place and has acted like the seat is an entitlement. At the very least, it's nice to see the Dems actually have to fight for something up here.

I agree that Coakley was a pretty terrible choice. I would have much much rather seen Capuano, or else somebody else completely. Coakley is a pretty boring candidate overall. She doesn't do a lot to...inspire me.

That being said - I can't see voting for someone with Brown's social positions (healthcare, abortion, homosexuals, etc.), and as I've tried to point out to people...if Brown were to somehow manage to win he wouldn't go into the Senate as a "moderate Republican" or anything. In order to get national GOP funding and not be tea-bagged in his next election he'd have to conform to the "standard GOP platform" on all those hot-button issues. So it wouldn't be electing a "moderate Republican" or an "independent-thinking Republican." It'd be much worse than that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Really? You think it's hypothetical? If you do, you're far more out of touch with the political climate than most. We'll just agree to disagree.

lmao.

unless you have some sort of actual tangible proof then yes, it is by definition hypothetical.

and the "political climate" that you're in touch with is...well i'll just stop there, because I think everyone knows.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's all well and good, but at this point Haiti doesn't have a government or a police force in any real sense. By most accounts there is no "nation" as we understand it.

True, but it is a true Libertarian response. Every major Libertarian scholar I have ever read has done anything but call for isolationism. They call for non-interventionism. (Which I believe was Obama's stance until he became president) They don't believe in policing the world, making alliances that bring you into other people's shit, starting wars that cause more problems than they solve...

It is just like the "war" on drugs. The Libertarian answer is anything but legalizing everything so that anyone can inject themselves to the death with bad and evil drugs. They feel like our current policy is a complete waste of money and in reality is just another tax on the poor.

I won't call DaddyTorgo lazy in his incorrect generalizations ("oh well it didn't happen to us...let's pull back and defend our borders and let all the people in Hati just fend for themselves.") because I was brought up the same way and told my whole life by teachers, professors, and news outlets how wacky the Libertarians are. If people actually picked up a book and read what they really believe they may have same enlightening that I freely admit I had. We don't have to do the same stupid things over and over just because this country is great and why fix small problems. Why not make it even better?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

True, but it is a true Libertarian response. Every major Libertarian scholar I have ever read has done anything but call for isolationism. They call for non-interventionism. (Which I believe was Obama's stance until he became president) They don't believe in policing the world, making alliances that bring you into other people's shit, starting wars that cause more problems than they solve...

It is just like the "war" on drugs. The Libertarian answer is anything but legalizing everything so that anyone can inject themselves to the death with bad and evil drugs. They feel like our current policy is a complete waste of money and in reality is just another tax on the poor.

I won't call DaddyTorgo lazy in his incorrect generalizations ("oh well it didn't happen to us...let's pull back and defend our borders and let all the people in Hati just fend for themselves.") because I was brought up the same way and told my whole life by teachers, professors, and news outlets how wacky the Libertarians are. If people actually picked up a book and read what they really believe they may have same enlightening that I freely admit I had. We don't have to do the same stupid things over and over just because this country is great and why fix small problems. Why not make it even better?

I just think the essay you posted comes from a guy living in a dream world. Defend property rights? How to you propose to do that without a functioning government or police force? Any decisions along those lines aren't a big concern when people don't have food water or shelter. There are bigger problems at the moment than trade policy.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just think the essay you posted comes from a guy living in a dream world. Defend property rights? How to you propose to do that without a functioning government or police force? Any decisions along those lines aren't a big concern when people don't have food water or shelter. There are bigger problems at the moment than trade policy.

Though I am sure I will get blasted with some sort of "too soon" argument here I think we can all agree that a lot of those buildings collapsed and people died due to the intense poverty and poor building structure of the country. The San Francisco earthquake was about the same scale in a city that is just as big if not bigger and 63 people died. Does this make the Haiti victims less tragic? Does this mean we shouldn't give money privately? You know the answer. But the question is where does all the pre-earthquake aid really go? There are plenty of countries that have implemented free markets that have made bigger strides that Haiti.

So will we change our future policies on similar countries? Doubtful. I keep hearing that we can save the world! But we then when I ask why Haiti is so poor hear that maybe we can't save the world. Choose one or the other, unfortunately I think the second statement is a lot closer to the truth so why flush all this money down the drain?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I won't call DaddyTorgo lazy in his incorrect generalizations ("oh well it didn't happen to us...let's pull back and defend our borders and let all the people in Hati just fend for themselves.") because I was brought up the same way and told my whole life by teachers, professors, and news outlets how wacky the Libertarians are. If people actually picked up a book and read what they really believe they may have same enlightening that I freely admit I had. We don't have to do the same stupid things over and over just because this country is great and why fix small problems. Why not make it even better?

thanks for not calling me lazy. actually just buried under a mountain of work...i really should leave this thread for the day, but it's a nice...diversion every so often

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I agree that Coakley was a pretty terrible choice. I would have much much rather seen Capuano, or else somebody else completely. Coakley is a pretty boring candidate overall. She doesn't do a lot to...inspire me.

That being said - I can't see voting for someone with Brown's social positions (healthcare, abortion, homosexuals, etc.), and as I've tried to point out to people...if Brown were to somehow manage to win he wouldn't go into the Senate as a "moderate Republican" or anything. In order to get national GOP funding and not be tea-bagged in his next election he'd have to conform to the "standard GOP platform" on all those hot-button issues. So it wouldn't be electing a "moderate Republican" or an "independent-thinking Republican." It'd be much worse than that.

I was a solid Brown vote until the debate. I don't think he came off all that well. I agree that he's not much of a free-thinking Republican and his stance on gay marriage does turn me off (though I see that issue as having less importance in a Congressional race, personally). Right now, I'm between Brown (who is closer to me than Coakley) and Kennedy (who I agree with a lot, but will obviously not win). It's not often I get to have a vote here in MA that will mean much of anything, so I'm new to this.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Though I am sure I will get blasted with some sort of "too soon" argument here I think we can all agree that a lot of those buildings collapsed and people died due to the intense poverty and poor building structure of the country. The San Francisco earthquake was about the same scale in a city that is just as big if not bigger and 63 people died. Does this make the Haiti victims less tragic? Does this mean we shouldn't give money privately? You know the answer. But the question is where does all the pre-earthquake aid really go? There are plenty of countries that have implemented free markets that have made bigger strides that Haiti.

So will we change our future policies on similar countries? Doubtful. I keep hearing that we can save the world! But we then when I ask why Haiti is so poor hear that maybe we can't save the world. Choose one or the other, unfortunately I think the second statement is a lot closer to the truth so why flush all this money down the drain?

You're arguing two different things. It's fine to talk about economic development, but that's very different from disaster relief. I'm not going to defend the various Haitian dictators, but those discussions don't mean anything when people are struggling to stay alive.

btw- It's fascinating that you use an example of effective government regulation to argue for libertarian policies.

[JPhillips]

Poor MBBF:

President Obama filmed a video message and a new robocall message on Coakley's behalf.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Do you think it may be that people who choose to purchase insurance are generally making better decisions on average? Basically they are more responsible and make less high risk decisions in life.

I wonder, though, how many people choose to purchase insurance vs. have it provided by their employer? I'm going to assume (but I'm happy to be proven wrong) that the vast majority of the insured simply have it provided by their employer and so there's no decision-making involved (realistically).

[DaddyTorgo]

wow...i knew the numbers were bad, but i didn't realize they were quite this bad

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade.

During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

And yet Karl Rove thinks Congressional Dems will run up more debt by October than Bush did in all his years?? Puhleeze!

[Galaxy]

Obama is coming to the state to back Coakley on Sunday (according to boston.com).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Poor MBBF:

That's MUCH different than a formal visit. I thought you were politically savvy enough to know that, but perhaps you're not.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Obama is coming to the state to back Coakley on Sunday (according to boston.com).

If so, that's an interesting turnabout from their previous stance.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

On a slightly related note, a new Suffolk University poll in MA has Scott Brown up by 4 over Martha Coakley. This is simply stunning. Support for the healthcare plan in MA (according to the poll) is at 36% with disapproval at 51%. (This, btw, in a poll with 15% of the respondents as Republicans)

Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race - BostonHerald.com

I still can't fathom Brown winning next Tuesday, but I'm curious what the Massachusetts contingent thinks now that the election is less than a week away.

Suffolk University. 1/11-13. Likely voters. MoE 4.4%.
Martha Coakley 46%
Scott Brown 50%



Suffolk isn't a fantastic pollster -- they're in the lower half of the pollster rankings at FiveThirtyEight and completely missed the New Jersey governor's race. But since they missed New Jersey by putting the Democrat nine points up a week before he lost, that may be scant comfort.

In the end, we come back to the fact that special elections are tough to poll and we just won't know who was right until Tuesday night.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

As far as the MA Senate race goes, I'm pretty excited to see how it ends up. Even Nate Silver referred to it as a "toss-up" earlier today. Still unsure which way I'll vote, but Coakley botched this terribly. She is not a particularly enthralling candidate in the first place and has acted like the seat is an entitlement. At the very least, it's nice to see the Dems actually have to fight for something up here.

Coakley just comes across as arrogant and has made some mistakes that reflect that. The misspelling of Massachusetts in one her ads, the "Kennedy" seat, the stance on Catholic health care workers probably shouldn't work in the ER and her bodyguard/supporter/handler pushing down a reporter.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Coakley just comes across as arrogant and has made some mistakes that reflect that. The misspelling of Massachusetts in one her ads, the "Kennedy" seat, the stance on Catholic health care workers probably shouldn't work in the ER and her bodyguard/supporter/handler pushing down a reporter.

you realize only 50% of those things you cited were directly attributable to her - the "kennedy seat" comments (insofar as she has made them herself), and the stance on catholic healthcare workers (which in reality is just an opinion, nobody's going to legislate that). The other things were entirely out of her control.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I guess the same argument could be made about spending a trillion dollars to prevent the deaths of 22,000 individuals, but honestly I haven't really thought much about it in that regard...

Well good, because it would be a misleading argument to say we're spending the money solely to prevent the deaths of 22,000 people.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Now I'm not suggesting that because 195,000 people died every year because of medical mistakes we go back to a system of midwives and witch doctors

Well good, because surely that would result in even more deaths.

but I think it's reasonable to wonder if the increased number of deaths (due to increased patients being served) would be more than the 22,000 people who are dying because of a lack of insurance.

Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if insuring these folks actually led to more deaths?

This is a simplistic argument. You're drawing a direct-line correlation between the number of people served and the number who die from medical mistakes. Since the 195,000 number (I presume) includes the uninsured, how much does the number go down because the number of uninsured who die from medical mistakes (due to needing treatment for conditions that were preventable) no longer need those procedures?

How much less busy are ERs because they no longer have to provide primary care for the uninsured?

How many fewer people die because the uninsured are no longer being turfed to the most overworked (i.e. public) hospitals?


Further, the argument ignores the many efforts across the country that have both improved care and reduced cost.