I am now, and even if she did fail to prosecute the case aggressively enough, which is certainly not clear, it hardly excuses the comment - or Brown’s perceived reaction.
What the heck was she doing campaigning in Washington?
I suspect that most people who will vote for Brown will vote solely on the issue of the health care bill.
I think a lot will be voting to diminish the dominance of the dems a little. This one-party rule has turned out too well for anyone.
Yeah, spite is part of it too.
What I find, well, interesting, is how many of my right wing friends are crowing and feeling all proud of themselves. If Brown wins, I predict they’ll be insufferable fucks. I further predict that if Scott Brown wins, I’ll have fewer of them as friends on Facebook.
We’re a looong way from Brown winning. MA has deep Dem roots.
This is because they (and/or the pundits) feel that this election is a complete referendum on both the President and health care reform. If Brown wins, it “means” that Obama has been utterly repudiated by America so badly that he’ll never get anything significant done again, and that health care reform will be utterly destroyed, never to return. If you believe that, then it certainly would be a significant victory for Republicans, no?
True. And who knows, she may not even be into anal.
Perhaps, but a popular Democratic candidate could mitigate that effect. Coakley is (apparently) not that candidate.
It worked pretty well for the Dems in 2008.
That and the “hope” that the clean and articulate fellow would make the rest of the world love us again and bring us all racial harmony.
You must agree there is a good deal of buyer’s remorse that extends beyond the health care legislation fiasco.
THe rest of the world does like us a lot better than they did.
As for the racial harmony, I don’t think anyone thought that racism would go away. We knew that the Republicans would still need to win elections.
One party rule would be interesting, but hasn’t actually happened yet. What, exactly, has Obama actually pushed through?
magellan, the fact that your guys failed so epicly when they had one-party rule (you remember the last decade, don’t you?) does not necessarily mean that one-party rule was what was at fault, ya know?
They have a majority in both houses and the presidency; more of a majority than the Republicans had in the past ten years.
My entire post was two sentences. You’re a bright guy; read the rest.
I just want everyone to know that magellan has a soft spot in his heart for cute kitty-cats.
First of all, I challenge your assertion that I’m a bright guy. That’s a damn lie, and you know it.
But I did read both your sentences, and what I said doesn’t contradict your second sentence. There is one party rule; the Democrats do control the presidency and both houses of Congress, and they haven’t done anything with that opportunity. What’s the use of the Democrats being in control if they can’t do anything?
What “worked” for the Democrats in 2008 was 8 years of bullshit shoved down our throats by Bush and his cronies. People don’t get that fed up out of spite.
Who are you again, Mr. “I’ve been here a while”?
I smell the return of someone who’s been here before under a different name.
There is one party in control of the House, Senate and White House on paper. However, the Blue Dog Democrats and Liebermans (not to mention the closed season on bipartisanship) have effectively created a deadlock.
mswas said “[this] one-party rule has [not] turned out too well for anyone.” Well, it’s turned out pretty well for moderates, hasn’t it?
I think that sort of nails it.
It worries me that some of my friends can be so utterly clueless to believe it “means” much of anything. What I find hard to take is that the righties want to kill the health care bill so much that they’ll support a guy who has nothing to say about what things he’ll do in D.C. (aside from kill the HC bill).
Scott Brown is an empty suit. He brings virtually nothing to the table. Except more obstructionism.