A few days ago, the left-wing activist group MoveOn.org began sending out emails seeking contributions to fund primary challenges against any Democratic senator who does not fully support "health care reform with a public option." Now there's an update: MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben says the group has raised $3,578,117 for the project and is thinking of new ways to punish errant Democratic lawmakers.
"It's a huge sum, and the clearest signal yet that any Democrat who helps Republicans filibuster health care reform will face an enormous backlash from the grassroots," writes Ruben. And now, working in conjunction with Howard Dean's old organization Democracy for America, MoveOn is starting a drive to take away the committee chairmanships of any Democrat who fails to live up to MoveOn's progressive standards. "Many of these senators hold coveted committee chairmanships that give them significant power within the Senate," Ruben writes. "Our friends at Democracy for America have launched an open letter urging Senate Democrats to strip committee chairmanships from any Democrat who filibusters health care." Ruben says that more than 66,000 MoveOn and Democracy for America members have pledged to contribute.
"Chairing a committee is a privilege, not a right," Ruben continues. "So if a member of the Democratic Congress joins with Republicans in the most important vote in a generation, then they certainly don't deserve a position of power controlled by Democrats."
The latest statements from MoveOn and Democracy for America come amid continued media analysis of divisions in the Republican party. MoveOn's threats -- backed by millions of dollars and tens of thousands of progressive activists -- have received far less attention.
This could be bad. If the Democrat civil war is as bad for them as the Republican Civil war was for the GOP this week, Nancy Pelosi will be speaker of the house forever.
President Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals within his own party who are vowing to "spank" the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.
President Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals within his own party who are vowing to "spank" the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.
In a prime-time speech Tuesday from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama is expected to announce that he is sending up to 35,000 additional troops to Afghanistan beginning next year.
The figure is short of the 40,000 troops his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, requested -- but enough to anger many congressional Democrats who oppose any potential troop surge, arguing that the mission is too expensive and lacks a clear objective.
"I think there will be some disillusionment within his base," said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president's announcement.
"We're going to spank him for sending more troops," he told FoxNews.com, adding that they may also "thank him" if he announces a quick exit strategy.
The White House has said that the U.S. won't be in Afghanistan for another eight or nine years. But that won't satisfy liberals, Martin said.
Even though Obama's announcement is sure to reawaken the anti-war movement, Martin said, the protests won't be as intense as they were in the Bush era because the movement has been weakened by the economic recession -- some organizations have shed up to 40 percent of staff in the past year, he said -- and is distracted by the national health care debate. He also said many members of the movement voted for Obama and trust him more than the Bush administration.
"So you don't have that same type of anger," he said.
But without the support of congressional Democrats, Obama will find himself in the awkward position of relying on the support of Republicans who largely oppose his domestic agenda. And he may have to explain how he supports a troop surge in Afghanistan when he opposed one in Iraq two years ago.
Republicans, though, see the announcement as a chance for Obama to finally work with both political sides.
"The president does face a serious battle inside his own caucus, his own party, particularly in the House of Representatives," former senior Bush adviser Karl Rove told Fox News. "But here's a moment for bipartisanship. I suspect the president will easily win support for this if he reaches out and melds together the Democrats who are willing to support his war policy with the Republicans. I suspect virtually every Republican will support the president in this if he asks for their support."
Before Obama speaks Tuesday, he is meeting at the White House with all the Democratic chairmen of the relevant committees along with their Republican counterparts.
Two top Democrats have already said they will push for a "war surtax," a new tax on the wealthy to pay for any increase in U.S. troops for the war.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which controls the pursestrings for the war, and Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are making the demands.
"If we have to pay for the health care bill, we should pay for the war as well ... by having a war surtax," Obey told ABC News this week. "The problem in this country with this issue is that the only people that has to sacrifice are military families and they've had to go to the well again and again and again and again, and everybody is blithely unaffected by the war."
Congressional Democrats are starting to voice their anger at President Obama over the way health care legislation has been compromised, blaming him for not fighting harder.
While many House Democrats have expressed anger with the Senate for the watered-down bill, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) argued that it was really Obama who let centrists take control. "Snowe? Stupak? Lieberman? Who left these people in charge?" he said. "It's time for the president to get his hands dirty. Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares. We must stop letting the tail wag the dog of this debate."
President Obama rejected a call by the former Democratic Party chairman to kill the current Senate health care bill, a White House spokesman said.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a physician who also was Vermont governor and a former presidential candidate, said on national television Wednesday he believed legislation in the Senate would now benefit the insurance industry more than it helps Americans struggling to gain health coverage or pay for it.
Dean said the bill was an "insurance company's dream."
But White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said if that's the case, "I don't think the insurance companies have gotten the memo" and continue fighting so hard against the measure.
The sharp exchange came as Senate Democratic leaders push for a vote on the health care bill just before Christmas. The president, who is scheduled to take a vacation at that time, has not indicated if he would stay in Washington for that vote.
Dean told ABC's "Good Morning America" that Washington conventional wisdom has become "passing any bill is a victory. Decisions are being made about the long-term future of this country for short-term political reasons. And that's never a good sign."
Dean went on to imply that 27 percent of the money put into the new health care program by individuals won't go to their own health care, and that only a small number of people will get any insurance at all before the year 2014 if the bill works in its current form.
But Gibbs said those claims "quite simply weren't true."
"Nobody will be required to purchase something they can't afford. There are hardship exemptions and subsidies based on income levels that help people afford insurance," Gibbs said. "He went on later in the interview to discuss the notion that legislation no longer contains anything that addresses pre-existing conditions. That's simply flat-out wrong."
Gibbs even reached back to Dean's failed presidential bid in 2004, when Dean made health care legislation reform a central part of his campaign, and pointed out that the current plan by Obama conquers obstacles Dean's plan could not.
"There's two differences in what Dr. Dean was doing in 2004 and what President Obama is doing in 2009," Gibbs said. "One, more people are uninsured and more people are losing their coverage because people can't afford it. Secondly, we actually deal with costs."
The back and forth between Dean and Obama on health care reform is not new, but the former DNC chairman's comments Wednesday seemed to touch a nerve at the White House that could reverberate back to Capitol Hill.
Gibbs continually linked Dean to members of the Senate and his own party who support health the current Senate bill, even with compromises.
"Understand, Sen. Harkin, who shares many of the political views that Howard Dean has, supports the bill; Sherrod Brown, many other progressives in the caucus...Because they understand that passing a bill covering 30 million Americans that don't have health insurance is a giant step forward," Gibbs said.
But Dean wasn't convinced.
"In Washington, you get into this crunch where bad- good money gets thrown after bad- good money gets thrown after bad- and good policy gets thrown after bad policy," he said. "And at this point, I think, the bill is not worth passing in its present form."
Enoug, Enough.. ENOUGH!!!!! IT'S PAST TIME WE STOP PLACATING THOSE WHO WOULD PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AND WHO ACTIVELY AND YEAH, UNASHAMEDLY WORK FOR BIG MONEY, THEMSELVES, AND AGAINST AGAINST! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Oh sorry, am I shouting? Good. We need to do more shouting. In fact I'd like to start a pitchfork and torch business. I think we're getting to the point where it'd be a great investment opportunity. Because it's plainly obvious that dickheads, (oh i'm sorry, am I being profane? GOOD!) like Joe Lieberman 1) need to be held to account for all the damage they do to the American public on behalf of their own ambition and greed and be stripped of any perks like chairmanships and um.. lets say their own "public option" health care that they themselves enjoy (AARRRGHH!!!!) while us peons die by the thousands every year. and.. 2) need to be drummed out of office just on the general principle that they are public SERVANTS, not servants of Blue Cross and certainly not our lords who can ignore our sufferings as they lift up their golden goblets and grown drunk and fat on their own avarice.
“The House Republican brand is so bad right now that if it were a dog food, they’d take it off the shelf, also they would kill babies” said retiring Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.)
"Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican Party much more than the Democrats have, perhaps even more than Fonzie surfing in boots." - Barry Goldwater
20 years, millions of scapegoats, and hundreds of denials later(but they sure looked cool)
His health care bill at stake, President Barack Obama plans a weekend trip to Massachusetts to campaign for endangered Senate candidate Martha Coakley after a poll showed an edge for Republicans in the race for a seat Democrats have held for over a half-century.
The White House said he will travel there Sunday.
"If Scott Brown wins, it'll kill the health bill," Democrat Barney Frank, D-Mass., said, underscoring the stakes of Tuesday's special election.
Said presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs: "I don't think Scott Brown is going to win on Tuesday."
Obama's trip was hastily arranged as the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress sought to nail down a deal on historic legislation overhauling the country's system of medical care. His visit comes after he taped a Web video e-mailed to his supporters and an automated phone call asking Massachusetts to vote for Coakley, and promising "She'll be your voice and my ally."
A Suffolk University survey released late Thursday showed that Brown, a Republican state senator, with 50 percent of the vote in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy in this overwhelmingly Democratic state.
Coakley had 46 percent. That amounted to a statistical tie since it was within the poll's 4.4 percentage point margin of error, but it was far different from a 15-point lead that Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, enjoyed in a Boston Globe survey released over the weekend.
The Suffolk poll also confirmed a fundamental shift in voter attitudes telegraphed in recent automated polls that Democrats had dismissed as unscientific and the product of GOP-leaning organizations.
And it signaled a possible death knell for the 60-vote Senate supermajority the president has been relying upon to stop Republican filibusters and pass not only his health care overhaul, but the rest of his legislative agenda heading into crucial mid-term elections this fall.
Brown has pledged to vote against the health care bill, and his election would give Senate Republicans the 41st vote they need to sustain a filibuster.
But Secretary of State William F. Galvin, Massachusetts' top election official, said certifying Tuesday's results could take more than two weeks. That delay could give Senate Democrats time to push Obama's signature legislation through Congress. Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr., the interim replacement for the seat, says he will vote for the bill if given the chance.
Republicans are using the threatened delay as a rallying point to argue Democrats have been gaming the rules to pass the health care bill despite public opposition.
The third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, had 3 percent in the Suffolk poll. The Libertarian businessman is unrelated to the senator, who died Aug. 25 of brain cancer.
"Although the results show a race within the statistical margin of error, Scott Brown has surged dramatically," David Paleologos, director of Suffolk's Political Research Center, said in a statement. "He is attracting independent support by a wide margin and even winning some Democrats who won't vote the party line this time."
Paleologos said Joseph Kennedy's supporters could end up being pivotal in the election's outcome.
"A late rotation away from Kennedy to one of the major candidates could have a significant impact," he said.
The survey of 500 registered Massachusetts voters was conducted in a three-day span ending Wednesday, when Brown enjoyed a surge after being widely seen as beating Coakley in their final debate on Monday. The question surrounding it and a number of recent surveys was whether the group sampled accurately reflected the likely field of voters Tuesday.
The election comes the day after the three-day Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Snow is also forecast for Monday, and many locals often head south for warmer weather or north to go skiing during the shortened work week.
Brown supporters, meanwhile, are mimicking Republicans and independents who shaped recent GOP victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. They are showing a high degree of enthusiasm for their candidate, a relative unknown who has never run statewide, while Democrats have shown little passion for Coakley although she cruised in the four-way Democratic primary with nearly 50 percent of the vote.
Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani urged voters who rallied in Boston's North End to elect Brown for his anti-terror credentials.
"His election, I believe will send a signal — and a very dramatic one — that we're going in the wrong direction on terrorism," said Giuliani, who opposes having the trial of Sept. 11 terror suspects in New York City.
Former President Bill Clinton was making two stops in Massachusetts Friday on behalf of Coakley later in the day.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
So, liberal Mass. could elect a Republican to fill the seat of one of the most famous Democrats of the Senate in modern history. Just it being this fucking close is hilarious.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
So, liberal Mass. could elect a Republican to fill the seat of one of the most famous Democrats of the Senate in modern history. Just it being this fucking close is hilarious.
The left-wing website Fire Dog Lake has commissioned two polls on incumbent Democratic House members from SurveyUSA. One showed seven-term incumbent Vic Snyder trailing Republican Tim Griffin 56%-39% in Arkansas-2, and Snyder promptly announced his retirement.
Now we have another SurveyUSA poll showing Ohio-1 freshman Democrat Steve Driehaus trailing Republican former Congressman Steve Chabot also by 56%-39%. District voters disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance by a 55%-42% margin—a pretty negative verdict. Fire Dog Lake seems to be wary of the House and Senate bills’ requirements that individuals purchase health insurance, and the question on that issue in this poll reflects this: 28% favored a health care bill with such a requirement, 28% a bill without such a requirement and 40% opposed any health care bill. Fire Dog Lake makes much of the fact that only 40% are totally opposed, but when respondents are given three possible choices they tend to respond somewhat differently than when they get two choices. The results are interesting but not utterly dispositive.
Steve Chabot was first elected by a 56%-44% margin in this district in 1994, defeating one-term Democratic incumbent David Mann. He won 54%-43% in 1996, 43%-47% in 1998, 53%-45% in 2000, 65%-35% in 2002, 60%-40% in 2004 and 52%-48% in 2006. Driehaus won 52%-47% in 2008. In other words, Ohio 1 was just a little more Republican than the national average vote for the House in most elections, with a spike upward in the good Republican years of 2002 and 2004, when Chabot’s Democratic opponent (the same man in both contests) spent less than $100,000. Ohio 1 includes most of the city of Cincinnati and its west side suburbs, plus a small part of suburban and rural Butler County to the north. It’s historically Republican, but its population in 2000 was 28% black and that percentage is probably significant higher now since there has been much white flight in this decade from the city of Cincinnati.
The two Fire Dog Lake polls are ominous for congressional Democrats. The Arkansas-2 result suggests that Democratic incumbents in districts in what I have called the Jacksonian belt are in deep trouble. The Ohio 1 result suggests the same for Democratic incumbents in a much greater numbers of inner suburban districts around the country. Of course, polls are a snapshot at a point of time and these two may be capturing opinion at a moment which will prove to be passing. But these results suggest very strongly that, unless there’s a change in the tide of opinion, Republicans have an excellent chance of capturing the 40 seats they need for a majority in the House. Whether Steve Driehaus will choose to fight it out or retire remains to be seen.
So, liberal Mass. could elect a Republican to fill the seat of one of the most famous Democrats of the Senate in modern history. Just it being this fucking close is hilarious.
of course Obama should be able to claim this sint his fault, the Dem candidate is and idiot. she did a radio interview where she said Catholics shouldnt be allowed to work i the ER:
The first rule of liberal club is never public admit you hate Christians, save that for the aristocrat social clubs.
Steve Giosi and Liam Foley have been known to tip back a few pints on adjacent stools at the Galway House in this city's Jamaica Plain neighborhood. But on Tuesday, they'll part ways -- at least politically.
"I'm leaning toward him," Giosi said one recent afternoon, nodding at the TV screen, which had been playing a seemingly continuous loop of ads both promoting and denigrating Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown.
"I'm a Democrat. I always have been," said Foley, 55; to demonstrate his sense of loyalty, he pointed to his Tiger Woods cap. "I'm voting for Martha Coakley. I think she's good."
Countered Giosi, 48: "I think [President] Obama is scaring a lot of people with this health reform. Somebody's going to have to pay for this. It's not going to be a small bill."
One person who could end up paying for it is Coakley, Massachusetts' Democratic attorney general and once the overwhelming favorite to keep the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's seat in the party's hands.
Just days from the special election, most political experts rate the race a toss-up, an almost unimaginable development in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1.
Brown, a state senator, had so little name recognition when he launched his campaign that he was better known for being the father of an "American Idol" semi-finalist (Ayla Brown, who competed in 2006). But he's been pounding two issues of late: terrorism and the massive healthcare overhaul, which is in its final stages in Congress.
If he wins on Tuesday and is seated in time to vote on healthcare, he has pledged to help filibuster and kill the bill.
Several factors have been cited to explain Brown's surge: He's affable and telegenic, and has run an aggressive campaign, compared with Coakley's more reserved effort.
But interviews with potential voters also revealed a persistent feeling that Obama and his allies in Congress have misread the public mood and have failed to concentrate on priorities such as the economy.
Half an hour outside Boston in Salem, Spike Tebo was having his hair cut at Killy's Barber Shop. "People are tired of what's going on with the Democratic Party," Tebo said. "The healthcare bill, what is it -- 1,000 pages? Who can read that?"
"Some of them haven't read it, you know that," added the barber -- Killy himself, whose full name is Achilles Xerras. A lot of his customers, he said, "are going for Brown."
Tebo, 74, and Xerras, 71, said they viewed Democrats as elitist and tone-deaf -- citing Coakley's reference to the Senate post she would occupy as the "Kennedy seat."
"Like he owned the seat," Xerras said. "It's the people's seat" -- a line often used by Brown.
North of Boston in industrial Lynn, Tom Pedersen and two co-workers from the Stanley Elevator Co. ate lunch at the Atlantic Coast Seafood Market. They are worried that the healthcare bill will mean scaled-back union benefits.
"It's a big issue for us," said Pedersen, 50, over a carton of fried fish. "Do you bring everyone in America up to our level? Or bring our level down?"
Nervous union members are among the voters Brown has been courting.
Eric Fehrnstrom, one of Brown's campaign advisors, described Massachusetts Democrats as split between "Harvard elites" and middle-class voters whose families have been party members for generations. "When they see a good working-class guy like Scott Brown, they're drawn to him." (For the record, Brown is a lawyer. But he does drive a GMC pickup truck.)
"It has everything to do with this feeling that the elites in Washington think they know better," said Sissy Willis, a conservative activist and blogger from Chelsea who has been tracking Brown's rise. The "tea party" movement, Willis said, has finally "found a specific race where it has made a difference" -- partly by reaching out to alienated Democrats and independents.
It isn't just conservative and working-class voters who are moving to Brown.
Dining in Boston's financial district, Jennifer Rogers, who voted for Obama, said she was disappointed that Democrats and Republicans weren't working together on healthcare and other issues -- and she blamed both parties. "You've got no one voting based on what the people want," said Rogers, 26, of Brookline.
Her friend Alycia Torres, 31, added: "I never thought we'd be this divided as a country so soon into his presidency."
Rogers and Torres said they would vote for Brown, casting him as the sort of independent-minded politician Obama once appeared to be.
Rogers said she couldn't vote for Coakley. "She's so embedded in the Democratic Party, there will be no change."
Raymond La Raja, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, still expects Coakley to win, saying that Democrats have a greater capacity in the state to deliver voters to the polls. But he offered a caveat: "There's a huge swath of disaffected independents" that could tilt the election.
And if the Democrats lose, they'll be in store for a rough 2010 at the hands of an energized GOP, which would use Brown's win as a model for congressional races nationwide.
In essence, La Raja said, the victory would be the first shot in what could be a revolutionary war -- a topic this state knows something about.
"It would be," he said, "like the Battle of Lexington and Concord."
My gut tells me that the DNC machine and ACORN will pull out a win but it'd be great to have the Republican win if, for no other reason, to shit on the memory of that drunken socialist murderer.
Remember Barack Obama's promises of transparency? Neither do we. Behind closed doors, Obama's administration is cutting deals with special interests in the hope of saving the increasingly unpopular ObamaCare legislation, reports the Associated Press:
The White House reached a tentative agreement with union leaders early Thursday to tax high-cost insurance plans, officials said, removing one of the major stumbling blocks in the way of a final compromise on comprehensive health care legislation sought by President Barack Obama.
Complete details of the tentative deal were not immediately available, although the White House was expected to present it to senior lawmakers later in the day. Union leaders also were returning to the White House.
Fox News quotes House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer as saying this morning that lawmakers are "very close" to a deal.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts, the Boston Herald reports that a new Suffolk University poll finds Republican Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley, 50% to 46%. If Brown wins, ObamaCare dies. He would be the 41st vote to prevent any compromise legislation from coming to the floor of the Senate.
Even in Massachusetts, according to the Herald poll, 51% of voters oppose ObamaCare and 61% say "they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it." You would think, then, that the Democrats might want to wait a few days before announcing that an ObamaCare agreement is imminent. Making such claims now only encourages Bay State voters to get out and back Brown.
Could it be that a Brown victory is just what some Dems want? Politico reports that President Obama told House Democrats yesterday that he's confident the people will fall into line once this monstrosity has been imposed upon them:
"Believe me, I know how big a lift this has been," Obama said. "I see the polls. . . . I catch the occasional blog poster, cable clip that breathlessly declares what something means for a political party, without really talking about what it means for a country.
"But I also know what happens once we get this done, once we sign this . . . bill into law: The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn't do things people have been trying to say it does. The worst fears will prove groundless."
Obama's term runs for another three years. If you're a Democratic representative, or a senator whose term is up this November, do you want to vote for this thing and bet your re-election on the president's assurance that "the American people will suddenly learn" how wonderful it is? Let's let such a man answer that question. From the same Politico report:
In an emotional talk with other Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee this week, North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy said the protracted debate is hurting him so badly back home that he might as well retire if it drags on much longer.
A Democrat who attended the Ways and Means session said Pomeroy was "very angry" as he spoke about the delay. "Other folks were upset, but he was the maddest by far."
"I believe Congress needs to resolve fairly quickly this protracted health care debate," Pomeroy told POLITICO on Thursday. "We have a number of other issues that haven't been able to get enough attention, because health care is taking up all the floor time, all of the attention. We need to move on."
Pomeroy has already decided to forgo a race for the Senate seat currently held by Democrat Byron Dorgan, who announced his retirement in the face of the ObamaCare storm just last week. What better outcome could there be for him than if Brown were to win, allowing ObamaCare to die without any Democrat having to suffer the embarrassment of flip-flopping or defying the party bosses?
Things still look difficult for the Dems come November, but they'll have a much easier time of it if ObamaCare is a mistake they averted rather than one the American people will have to live with for years.
Republicans are worried that if Brown wins, Democrats will try to jam through a Senate health reform vote while Kirk still occupies the seat, in the time between Brown's election and when he is certified the winner.
Kirk has pledged to vote for reform for as long as he remains a senator, even if Brown wins Tuesday. Some Republican lawyers are arguing he won’t have the chance.
Republican Scott Brown has been running ads in Massachusetts where he is out driving around in his old pickup truck while campaigning for US Senator something Marcia Martha Coakley refuses to do.
On Sunday Barack Obama slammed Scott Brown and his truck several times in his Bush-bashing campaign speech for Martha Coakley.
Maybe Barack Obama didn’t notice that Scott Brown’s truck is a GM truck.
I really don't understand why the Democrats keep making fun of the guy for driving a truck, regardless of the make and model. Don't these people realize that insulting truck drivers is not just insulting a big chunk of voters; it's insulting their buddies in the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO.
they dont get it. for some reason they went from making fun of average Americans in private to doing it in public, they mistook Obama's huge electoral victory as a landslide liberal victory, when in fact everyone with common sense knew it wasnt. these guys have been hiding in the shadows so long they couldnt wait to get out.
The sad thing is this: we had audio of Obama slamming the average American as being bitter and clinging to guns and religion prior to the election and the American people ignored it for empty slogans of "hope and change."
So maybe Obama is right. Maybe he can openly insult Americans and they won't care.
the difference now from then is i think average Americans have sought out and found alternative news sources. at that time the only fair and balanced news source was fox news and its reach on cable is limited. people have found new sources on the internet and can find out what is really going on. look at Van Jones and ACORN for example, even though the mainstream media tried to ignore them, the word got out and Obama and congress were forced to act, this wouldnt have happened a year ago when he got the free pass on bill ayers.
Meanwhile a Harvard professor is on the radio blaming the high percentage of GOP support in this election on...get this...bad weather. The professor is claiming that people have seasonal affective disorder and that makes them want to vote republican.
The arrogance of these people gets more overt every minute.
James Sheets a six term Democratic mayor of Quincy today endorsed Scott Brown for United States Senator. He released the following statement via the Brown campaign:
"Despite being a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, I am endorsing Scott Brown for Senate, as I know he will always represent Massachusetts with an independent voice in Washington," Sheets said. "Martha Coakley has repeatedly stated she would cast the critical 60th vote for the current health care proposal that would slash Medicare funding by nearly half-a-trillion dollars and dramatically impact the care so many seniors rely upon in their final years. As our United States Senator, I am confident Scott Brown will only support legislation that will benefit his constituents, and this is why I will be voting for him on Tuesday."
