Former pin-up, future Senator
I voted for Martha Coakley in the MA Democratic Primary, but reluctantly. Lukewarmly. I almost went instead for her liveliest opponent Alan Khazei, since he exhibited more ‘spark.’ Then a robo-phonecall from my personal political rock-star Bill Clinton pushed me over the edge. Maybe I should have gone with my gut.
Our blog’s ‘beat’ is personality/media/star power. How big a role did that play here? Nixon observed that you can be anything in politics– except ‘boring.’ Will Health Care reform founder because of another worthy charisma-challenged Democratic candidate? Of course, real anger about the economy and health care among many voters fueled Brown’s fire. But how big a factor were the two perceived ‘personalities’ here?
Like a young George W. Bush, Brown won over working class voters with his jaunty ‘populist’ style. Like former beauty queen Sarah Palin (below, in red swimsuit), former Cosmo. pin-up Brown capitalized on his telegenic looks and campaigning flair. 
Martha Coakley made matters worse on the image front by mixing up her Red Sox facts and calling Curt Schilling a Yankees fan three days before the election.
Many voters in the original Bush/Gore match-up voted for George W. because they wanted to have a beer with W. But we never got that beer: only war and recession.
Liberal winners like JFK and Obama have capitalized, too, on good looks and showbizzy campaigning skills. It’s the American way. But have the same voters who returned Ted Kennedy to the senate for decades taken such a sudden sharp turn to the right that they support Brown’s pro-life right-winger views? If one of Kennedy’s sons had run, would they have won? What tipped the balance to bring Brown his upset win? Was it his showman-style debates and his showbiz-ready daughters (above)?
And what of our superstar President, sworn in exactly a year ago? Is Obama’s star power waning? Or will this wake-up call recharge his own potent charisma? WDYT?
PS: Thanks to Penny2 for Brian McGrory’s hilarious morning-after article, Seduced by Our New Senator…
(photos- Brown nude: jezebel.com & Cosmo mag.; Palin: thetodayexperience.com; Brown & daughters: the-912-project.com)
YES, YOU SAID IT, IF TED KENNEDY JR. HAD RUN, HE’D HAVE WON
Hi Antistar–
Well, we’ll never know for sure but I agree: Ted Jr. after that fantastic and moving remembrance at his father’s funeral, would have been the one…
It’s very important to remember that Independent voters are the largest percentage in Massachusetts, followed by Democrats, and then Republicans, who make up a small percent. This means Scott Brown won because Independent, Democrat, and Republican voters all voted for him. He couldn’t have won without all three groups.
This election was a message for Washington. Unlike the rest of the country, Massachusetts already has mandated health insurance and it’s extremely unpopular. The cost of health insurance has gone up, and the lower middle class workers don’t qualify for the reduced insurance rates because they “earn too much.” Some will pay the tax penalty because they still can’t afford healthcare insurance even with the reform. This reform is a glimpse into what’s being proposed in Washington right now. The proposed healthcare in Washingtn doesn’t have a public option, so how is it going to help anyone who doesn’t qualify for MassHealth already? The ones who will benefit from the reform are the destitute, the same ones who qualify for MassHealth right now. The lower middle class and working poor will continue to get screwed. Look this up if you don’t believe me.
Taxes keep going up in Massachusetts and keep getting slapped on everything. People recently voted to keep the toll booths which should have been taken down once the Pike was paid off, but the state left them up because they were such a cash cow. People were threatened by politicians that if they voted to remove the tolls, taxes will go up. So what happened? People vote to leave up the tolls, and then the sales tax went up. There’s also a new tax on food, alcohol and the gas tax is going to shoot up, too.
People are losing jobs and going bankrupt in record numbers. The ones who are working are bringing home less in their paychecks thanks to taxes, yet the cost of living keeps going up.
Massachusetts has been a one party state for so long. The State House has suffered from numerous scandals. Look at the corruption. Payoffs, dirty deals, and politicians stuffing money down their shirts. Unlike the rest of the country, people look at the problems in this state and can’t blame the Republicans for these scandals.
People are desperate for relief. Any change looks good at this point. That’s why Scott Brown won. Pgeople are pissed, and the incumbents better pay attention and start listening to voters not lobbyists and corporate types if they want to keep their jobs in November.
To make fun of the people who voted for Brown is not only elitist, it is not smart. When you’re sent a message, it’s best to listen to it before that message gets louder. Desperate people do desperate things. This state, like the country, is desperate. Massachusetts is a sign of things to come. If a shakeup like last night can happen here, imagine what will happen on a national level.
Hi A.Nonymous:
Thanks for this thoughtful comment and I do agree that– as I said in the post– ‘anger about the economy and health care’ fueled this Brown fire. I don’t agree with your particular analysis of health care reform and what it could have meant to working people but I agree that these issues were on a lot of voters minds.
But there is a big group of voters who were ready to vote for Coakley only a week ago and I do think the personality factor played into what they decided. I give Brown credit as the better campaigner, definitely, and I think if Coakley had had more of that talent, she might not have lost this very crucial race.
I try to cover the ‘showbiz’ angle on stories here on the blog; I don’t mean to make fun of voters but just of the whole process in which elections can hinge on all sorts of strange factors. Coakley’s dumb but offhand remarks about standing in the cold and about Schilling played a role too, and so did the showbiz flair of Brown.
A. Nonymous-
Will you marry me? Seriously, I could not have expressed it any better.
This was not about sex appeal. This was about people not understanding a few things:
1. Most Americans are for some sort of health care reform but not the nightmare that was being shoved down our throats. ( By the way, I’m really tired of the sausage making analogy. Yes, I do in fact want to see how the sausage is made- most especially if it’s of the Sweeney Todd variety.)
2. Contrary to what seemed to be the prevailing attitude amongst media and Ms. Coakley, the Senate seat did not “belong” to the Kennedys or the Democrats.
Sott Brown said he was pro-choice during the last debate.
Sure, it’s a wake-up call, but (to strain the metaphor) it’s also daylight savings, and the Dems woke up too late.
When the Repubs had both houses and the presidency, they didn’t snooze away, they got busy. Too busy perhaps (those deficit-bloating, privacy-smashing, earth-killing cutie pies), but they didn’t whine about party purity when there was power to consolidate.
(Whining was for later, after the Repubs fubar’d the country beyond even talk droids’ ability to disguise.)
I’ll never understand why, when handed the keys to the car, all the Dems could do was drive it onto a tree. Asleep at the wheel again.
Greetings Litotes:
Always great to hear from you and I love your Daylight Savings metaphor– though I hope it doesn’t come true. Asleep at the wheel indeed; and I’m hoping this Coakley crash wakes up all the Dem. drivers– but as you point out, they must wake up
‘in time’….
True, he only revealed ‘pro-choice’ late in the race but there were clear signs all along that he is more of a right-winger than Mass. voters usually elect. Everyone will be chewing over for a long time what factors turned Kennedy voters so far ‘right’ so fast. What you state above all makes sense.
All a very interesting and volatile mix and the outcome will make things so much harder for Obama. But maybe he will rise to the challenge, as Clinton did when he lost the house. We shall see what happens, especially with more Dem. senators retiring.
In any case, I always appreciate hearing your well-thought-out views here on the blog, where the theatrical side of politics is always so intriguing to me.
How will the national healthcare reform be any different than the Masachusetts insurance mandate? The public option would have made things different. Without it, the national proposal looks the same as what’s going on in Massachusetts, and what’s going on here is very unpopular with the working class and working poor who don’t benefit in any way from it. I know because I’m one of those people who don’t qualify for any help because I make “too much.” That’s a laugh. On what planet? I think the national proposal needs a public option. Without it, the proposal isn’t worth it. Do it right or don’t do it at all.
Hi A.Nonymous:
Here, I DO totally agree with you on the Public Option–
I agree that should be in there and I see the argument that not having it makes the bill worthless.
Where I differ from you is in ‘or don’t do it at all’– I’m more of the camp that pushing through an imperfect bill now might be ‘better than nothing.’ But I could be wrong there–
At any rate, I’m no expert at all, but my unqualified opinion is yes, the Public Option loss was a big loss, and maybe helped lead to this big election loss, as some fed-up liberals may have stayed home. Good points, as always, A.–
The voters in Massachusetts are already paying higher insurance rates because of the insurance mandate in Massachusetts. If the national insurance mandate went through as is, they’d be taxed even more than they’re being taxed now and for what? Nothing. Nothing would change in terms of their insurance. The same people who don’t qualify for MassHealth or even the reduced insurance rates “offered” by the Massachusetts insurance mandate would be screwed once again.
It all comes down to the average person who lives paycheck to paycheck getting squeezed through more and more taxes being dumped on them and never benefitting from the programs that are passed.
The public option would make the national insurance mandate a real healthcare reform. Without it, the national insurance mandate would mean higher taxes for people already taxed to death in Massachusetts.
I don’t think this vote came down to just healthcare. It’s about the average person in the middle getting squeezed financially and finally revolting.
Hi A.–
Yes, this is a good summary of the economic factors and yes, I agree Public Option was the way to go. Some are saying maybe this election will be the wake-up call Obama needs to give up hope of bi-partisan deals and take a much tougher stand with his opponents.
I guess on optimistic scenario might be if this round of Health Care goes down, somehow a Public Option version might emerge. But with Brown and now maybe two more Republican votes (depending on the other open seats) it’s hard to imagine that passing, down the road.
But then this whole MA election outcome was hard to imagine only a week ago… Thanks again for the informative and well-stated comments. Though we disagree on a lot, I can see you know your facts and I appreciate this in-depth thinking– especially this early in the AM– E.
Coakley was a bad candidate and once word got out about her, people couldn’t vote for her without holding their noses. Forget the Yankees comment, the refusal to shake people’s hands in the cold, mispronouncing names of cities and towns in Massachusetts, and lying about seeing her rep knock down a reporter. Fells Acre, Father Geoghan, and refusing to indict the baby rapist because his father was promising her union votes did her in. I think people voted for the person not the party in Massachusetts. Brown posed in the nude? So what compared to letting known pedophiles and rapists off the hook and imprisoning people who were known to be innocent for years.
Hi again A.– Again, a lot of what you say here is true, unfortunately. Too true that Coakley was a bad performer on the campaign trail. Those gaffes you list were all damning. I think there is a good side to her too– as a longtime prosecutor she had her controversial cases that haunt her record, but she had successful ones too and at least was dealing day to day with life and death matters.
As for Scott posing nude: I have many problems with him, but not that. His good looks and campaigning skills were his main assets, and the voter anger you’ve mentioned– and now he’s ridden that into an incredibly scarily powerful position in our country, given the make-up of the Senate. I agree posing nude is no biggie (though I wonder if it would have been laughed off so easily if it had been the female candidate in a centerfold…) But when you make a decision to strip on camera in a national mag, you can’t expect that to stay hidden. That pic. is all over the place today– one light note after this very serious turn of events.
So it will be interesting, at least, to see how all this plays out; I want to hear Obama’s take on this and listen for a change of tone/strategy from him…
The Democratic party in Massachusetts only has itself to blame for Brown’s victory. First they fiddled with the law a few years ago because they didn’t want Governor Romney to appoint someone to office. They changed the law so an election had to take place. Then Ted Kennedy didn’t resign from his seat when he got sick. He didn’t select, annoint, and campaign for his replacement. Instead he held onto the bitter end. His friend held his seat until this election could take place. Coakley was a lame candidate who thought she could get the seat without breaking a sweat because this is Massachusetts where there’s only one party. Now there are two parties. The people’s anger has spoken.
It’s sad to think that Kennedy’s decision to hang on till the end played a part in what happened. I do think the Dem.s saw this as a safe seat, and shouldn’t have after MA had elected Weld and Romney. I wonder what would have happend if Joe Kennedy or really if Ted Kennedy Jr. who made such a big impression at his father’s funeral had run…
Since I’m roleplaying today (!), if I were Joe Kennedy (Bobby’s son, not the dude who ran for office), I wouldn’t have run for office either. He looks very happy on the Cape whenever I see him with his wife. Politics is a nasty sport and I wouldn’t want to go near it. Can you imagine having your personal life, tax records, health records, academic records, job reviews, untrue gossip about you, blah blah blah splashed in the media? Yucka. I’m happier sitting in my office making up stories for screenplays than having my own life story picked apart in public.
I think you are dead-on right about Joe Jr; I remember when he just poked his head up like he might run, the Herald blasted him, calling him (I believe) a ‘knucklehead.’ As you say, who needs that?
But we (Democrats in MA) may have needed the Kennedy magic, if there’s any of that left… I wonder if Caroline could have somehow run here instead of in crabby NY?
Really Ted Jr., after his moving performance at the funeral, is the one I think could have won had he changed personality, ‘lost his mind’ family-life-wise, and run…
The Dems certainly got a Mass kicking last night. If I were President Obama, I would take a page out of Clinton’s book and say, “It’s the economy, stupid.” I honestly think if he doesn’t address this issue in a big public way, he’ll be doomed to only four years in office. The U.S. is in a Depression, not a Recession. (That’s my vibe, and as you know, I’m psychic, haha!)
Hi Caitlin–
Yep, I agree if there is a Silver Lining somewhere in here for Dem.s it would be this has got to be Obama’s Wake-Up call. No more Mr. Nice Guy; and yes, that slogan of Clinton’s is the eternal truth:
The Economy, Stupid.
Alas, Scott Brown was more plugged into the economically strapped voters’ anger than tone-deaf Coakley…
Speaking of Power, I do indeed respect– nay, even FEAR– your predictive powers, Caitlin. I’m almost afraid to ask, but how do you think all this is going to play out? Will Health Care die? Will Obama be a one-termer?
What does our Celeb. Psychic feel in her Vibe this day of days?
Okay, you asked for it! The Dems need to stop this doom and gloom over Health Care. It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if they keep saying Health Care is over because Scott Brown won. Words have power. Perception becomes reality.
I don’t think the Dems should push through what they have right now. They should go back to the drawing board and create a plan with a public option along with safeguards that work for all socio-economic levels. This isn’t something that will happen overnight, but with a bipartisan team, I believe it will happen in less than three years.
If the President addresses the economy, and goes back to the drawing board with Health Care and emerges with a solid plan that makes sense, then he’ll get re-elected.
Pushing the current Health Care plan and not addressing the economy will open the door for more Mass kickings on a national level.
Of course, I could be totally wrong. But those are my vibes.
Almost forgot: The Dems need to call the public option something else when revising the Health Care plan. It needs a catchy name. Medicaid is a public option, but that name doesn’t scare people. Seniors love it and the younger people want to keep it in place for them. We should have a contest here re: a name for the public option in the Health Care plan. Something warm and friendly. I would steer away from including “U.S.” in it, though.
Wow: very impressive and has that scary Caitlin ring of truth.
All I can say is:
I hope Barack Obama is reading this Blog today!
Are you listening, Barack? Or Michelle– we love your fashion on the blog and you are the voice of reason in your family.
Tell Barack he needs a Psychic on his Cabinet–
Caitlin for Cabinet!
(Really, I think your vibes are right on, alas; but it’s not a totally hopeless forecast, just one that will require a change of course and a re-activated Obama; Barack, please heed Caitlin’s warnings…) XX to our resident Celeb Psychic– you’re on MY cabinet– E
PS:
Absolutely! So true: we gotta RE-BRAND ‘public option’ and it’s got to sound less scary. ‘Public Option’ has been hopelessly Harry & Louise’d to death–
Any suggestions, clever blog commenters? Litotes? Caitlin? Anyone?
Oh dear, Elizabeth, I think I may become addicted to your site…
Here’s my thought. Charisma with large doses of determination and hope elected Obama. Don’t get me wrong – he’s brilliant, he’s amazing, and I am glad he won the election. But I think he won, too soon. If I’d had my druthers, Hillary Clinton would have been president for four years (or eight years), then a more ‘seasoned’ Obama would have taken the reins. I think he’s done a fine job, considering he inherited a holy-ole mess. But the American people are an impatient bunch. A year is way too soon to judge someone, to get things done, to expect that the world will turn on its tired axis to produce nirvana on demand. In some ways, cult of personality elected Obama in a frenzy, and that’s too bad, because he’s a good man.
I’m discouraged by yesterday’s election because it will mean a trip back to the proverbial drawing board not just in terms of health care, but in so many other ways, as well. Patience is difficult, I understand, if someone has been out of work for a very long time, but it all takes time to turn things around. And here we go, again…
Oh good Morgan, the best news of the morning is that you may become addicted to this blog. (That’s the plan and we welcome stellar voices of reason like yours).
Your comment brings me back to my own Obama/Hillary feelings when they were engaged in their great race. Yes, I totally agree that Obama– brilliant though he is– certainly was elected in large part due to charisma and media waves and the like. I too felt Hillary had a deeper grasp of the big picture, from all her years of experience. And of course I wanted her because she was, well, HER.
But I voted for Obama (and happily) in the primary because I felt he was the one who could win, he was the much more gifted campaigner and that matters hugely. And he’s all those other good things you say too–
But as you also say: man, what a mess he inherited. And this day marking one year in office does not look too cheery, thanks to MA. But as our blog’s ‘psychic’ Caitlin says (her comments are in here somewhere) from these ashes, something stronger may arrise– If only Barack will read our blog and find the way!
XX & hope your keep addicting back to us here– E
Press conference with Gibbs right now. He’s focusing on the economy and saying that the “anger and frustration” in the country is understandable. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Did Gibbs read this messageboard? This is *exactly* what the White House needs to be saying. If the W.H. pushes for fair trade (not free trade), and cracks down on the Wall Street weenies and their greedy bonuses, you will hear a collective gasp from the populus before the burst of cheering and applause.
I’m telling you….”It’s the economy, stupid” part deux!!!
Hooray: Barack obviously took my advice this AM and read your psychic predictions, Caitlin. Can a Caitlin Cabinet Appointment be far behind?
This is a great post: thought-provoking, topical and fun…
Thanks Mark– glad you like it; I did stay up past midnight getting my thoughts down on this breaking (and as Martha Coakley said, ‘heartbreaking’) news…
Plus Scott’s Cosmo. photo was right up our dark alley, here on the blog–
Hmm, the public option needs a True Name …
How about Free Market Fitness ?
Invisible Handcare ?
National Health Security ?
AmeriCare?
CoverAll?
Rising Healthy Tide Lifts All Boats ?
<slap!>
Thanks, I needed that.
I love Free Market Fitness, but it sounds like an upscale Health Club (not necessarily a bad thing, actually…) Invsible Handcare is great but too mysterious and sexy,
National Health Security could work, though it has the Homeland Security echo…but you’re on the right track here, Litotes!
Catilin:
I think Cover-All is my fave, despite or maybe because of the fact that it sounds like a kiddie garment…
AmeriCare– good too but isn’t that ‘taken’ by some do-gooder group?
We’ve got to keep thinking since we had evidence today that Barack is reading the blog
(Since Gibbs was echoing Caitlin’s Talking Points today…)
U.S.Aid?
Naw.
CoverAll has the warm and cozy feel that I’m looking for. I’m going to stick with that suggestion.
That’s my fave too, though I have a soft spot for Not-Commie Care…
Good night, all….
Scott’s Hospital Cots ?
Universal Kicking Out To The Curb ?
Non-Commie Care ?
Guns ‘n’ Heartbeats ?
… Sorry, my keeper is calling …
LOL, Litotes–
You’re in the Zone–
Non-Commie Care has got legs–
But Scott’s Hospital Cots could feature Brown in the nude in the ads…
Keep ‘em coming despite your keeper…
From Out West in Arizona, it was evident after watching the two candidates that it wasn’t health care, the economy or Obama–it was charisma. Scott Brown had it and she didn’t. He enjoyed meeting people, pressing the flesh and hearing their thoughts. She was a smart lawyer who preferred the courtroom to a political rally. He is the male version of Sarah Palin and a senator to be feared. His treatment of his gorgeous daughters (Inappropriately dressed in strapless gowns for a political rally in cold Mass.) is an indication of his lack of family values. He will do or say anything to get attention(including posing nude)…..He is dangerous. I always thought Mass. valued quality candidates and would not be taken in by such a lightweight, but we were disappointed to the detriment of the Senate and perhaps the country.
Bracing words of wisdom from you tonight, Barb!
I could not agree more. You said it exactly: “He is the male version of Sarah Palin and a senator to be feared.”
Yes, it’s not just their shared penchant for showing off their bod.s that he and Sarah have in common. (She too liked
parading her offspring onstage in cold temperatures). And yes, Scott will do what it takes to get in the spotlight, whether
by stripping for Cosmo or stripping Americans of any hope for health care reform.
As a resident of MA, I can only shake my head along with you out here across the country. I too thought it ‘couldn’t happen here.’
Charisma did carry the day and I fear you are right again in saying that this new Senator-to-be is dangerous. And we
can ‘Put the Blame on Mass.” Thanks Barb, for some good Old West horse sense; if only our voters out here had had some themselves…
Life And Limb-baugh
State-Sponsored Immortality
Pro-Life For The Rest Of Us
.. I could go on and on … I have fifteen years before anything passes …
LOL 2–
and hope you are wrong about the 15 years…
You’re being melodramatic, Barb. How is he like Sarah Palin? Give examples.
Why he is dangerous? Give examples?
Why he is to be feared? Give examples.
His daughters were not inappropriately dressed for Massachusetts. The girls dresses had straps. Even if the dresses were strapless, they weren’t see-through or sleazy. People do own winter coats and wear gowns nd pretty dresses to special events. You’re just looking to pick on something.
Thanks for putting down the Independent, Democrat, and Republican voters in Massachusetts. They are not stupid. They are angry. Maybe if you lived in this state you’d understand why.
He posed nude but covered his privates almost 30 years ago. He did it for money for school. No one cares anymore about nudity in this day and age. You are a prude and looking to pick on something because he’s not a Democrat. I’d take him over a drunk who murdered a woman by leaving her to drown in a car for hours while he slept. That’s more acceptable to you?
Ad Hominem is always a distraction, your posts indicate you’re better than that.
All too easy in Teddy’s case to ignore any idea he comes up with in recompense for his crimes. Taking care of children is just such an idea. It’s really too bad the Chappaquiddick guy was in favor of that.
I think Barb has some good points. It’s true that Ted Kennedy had a lot to make up for and acknowledged that and worked his heart out for decades crafting legislation to help working people.
I do agree that voter anger fueled Brown’s win, but I also agree with Barb that he has quite a bit in common with Sarah Palin: a thin resume, good looks, glib answers to tough questions.
One thing he and Sarah P. might disagree about is his little nude adventure in Cosmo. There are plenty of ways to make $$ to pay for school without (as Sarah P. said of her almost-son-in-law Levi Johnston when he posed for Playboy) ‘selling his body.’ She warned us to beware of one who would ‘sell their body’ for money and attention. But I’m sure she’ll be among the first to embrace this smooth salesman senator.
He’s vowed to block Obama at every turn and that more than any of the above is why I’m feeling some voter anger myself today. Obama seems already to be toughening up, though. I still hope this crash will in fact be his wake-up call. He needs to get in battle mode and I think he is doing just that. Then we’ll see what handsome Mr. Brown is really made of. Let the games begin…
Dear Elizabeth, I agree that it’s all a game. A high stakes game — but that’s what makes it thrilling, right?
Call me crazy, but I think this country will be okay (eventually) if we start focusing on the economy. Once that gets straightened out, we’ll all be in better moods. As Cyndi Lauper once said, Money changes everything!
So true, Caitlin and Cyndi, about the high stakes game (my dad always calls politics The Greatest Show on Earth) and also about how money changes everything.
I think that should be the last word of the day…
A “thin resume”? Hm…
Served in a variety of other elected offices before becoming a state senator.
Elected to his state senate 4 times.
Elected to US Senate.
Has a JD.
Thin resume?
You’re a staunch Obama supporter. Shall we look at his credentials?
Held no political offices before being elected to his state senate.
Elected to his state senate 3 times.
Elected to US Senate.did not complete term because left to run for President.
Elected to President.
Has a JD.
I guess Obama’s resume is too “thin” to be President.
HI Piewacket–
Glad that you and A.Nonymous have ‘found each other’ here on the blog.
I was comparing Scott B. to Sarah Palin when I mentioned his thin resume. And yes, I think it’s fair to say that Scott, Sarah and Barack Obama all had relatively thin resumes when they burst on the national scene.
As I mention in my newest post, I was intially a Hillary supporter partly because of the resume issue. However like millions of Americans– just not you and A.– I felt Obama rose to the occasion and proved himself on the campaign trail, his brilliance inspiring crowds just as his three bestselling books and his groundbreaking Dem. Convention speech had already drawn serious national attention. This is in addition to his historic achievement of becoming the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review. Like JFK, Obama displayed an intellect and charisma that enabled him to transcend his admittedly ‘thin resume.’
To say the least, I don’t sense any such intellectual firepower or gravitas in Scott Brown. And I beg to differ that ‘sex appeal’ has nothing to do with this race.
Also I’d throw in the opinion that if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had been foolish enough to pull an exhibitionist stunt and pose nude in their twenties, they would never have been allowed to live it down.
We’ll see how Scott holds up in the big leagues. Obama may be struggling now, but overall he has held up quite well under the real pressure that is only just beginning for Scott B.
Elizabeth-
And what “intellectual firepower” has Obama demonstrated besides agreeing with your political viewpoints? Wrote 4 books? Well, so has Glenn Beck and I highly doubt you’d vote for him.
I’m not denying Obama’s an intelligent and charismatic man, but how has he demonstarted such awesome intellectula power? Funny, but that’s the same thing Democrats always cited about both Clintons. Somehow, any Democratic candidate is “brilliant” while any other candidate is a redneck, illiterate, stupid hick.
Brown is just as educated as Obama, so why is Obama “brilliant” while Scott’s gravitas and intelligence gets questioned?
I do agree about the centerfold issue. Republicans would be all over a Democrat who posed like that. Therein lies the whole moral of the election that both Democrats and Republicans are MISSING!
The majority of Independent voters, like myself, are frikkin sick and tired of the both parties, and their rabid supporters, acting like obnoxious children with an inability to play nice in the sandbox.
Rabid supporters is the perfect way to describe the Democrats and Republicans right now. If someone from their party does something, they excuse it away and then hurl rocks at the other party for the same behavior.
Democrats are making a serious mistake by insulting the intelligence of the voters in Massachusetts. There weren’t enough Republican voters in Masschusetts to vote him in. Independent and Democrat voters also voted him in too.
The nation keeps forgetting that healthcare wasn’t the only issue on Massachusetts’ voters minds. The decision for change was more local. The Democrats who have dominated Beacon Hill for decades are corrupt. The Governor is weak and ineffectual. Taxes keep going up and the elected officials weren’t listening to its constituents. I think Brown’s election grabbed everyone’s attention. Just look at the way Democrats across the nation are finally focusing on the economy and trying to address something other than healthcare for a change. Caitlin was right about that being the main issue.
Elizabeth, you wrote the something is better than nothing. A trillion dollars is too much to spend on the current heathcare proposal that isn’t reform at all. I go back to my original statement. Do it right or don’t do it at all. I can’t watch my taxes go up for something stupid. I certainly won’t benefit from the healthcare proposal as is. I’m not benefitting from the Massachusetts insurance mandate now.
Not every Democrat is brilliant. Not every Republican is an idiot. When you don’t listen to what the Massachusetts voters are telling you, you are asking for another voter tsunami in November.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/mcgrory_seduced.html
Great “morning after” article.
Of course, I don’t regret the vote I cast–yesterday.
I do deeply, deeply regret voting for Martha in December but think Capuano would have been the scrapper who would have engaged Scott Brown.
Coverall sounds like a bathing suit coverup–or a kind of make up.
Blame Boston and Worcester–she won them but they only had a turnout of 42%. Some of Scott’s burbs were 80%.
Boston and Worcester are inner cities. Who primarily lives in inner cities in Massachusetts? Many minorities who statistically don’t vote. That is not a racist statement. That is a fact. Illegal immigrants also can’t vote and they are living in the inner cities too.
Coakley was a piss poor candidate. No one who knows the facts about her in Massachusetts and watched her lazy arrogant campaign could vote for her with a good conscience. I’m sorry but I have to wonder about people who would vote for a horrible candidate only because that candidate was from a certain party. I vote for the person not the party.
LOVE this morning-after article– will have to get the link up on the Post along with a new link I saw on Huffington today of Scott’s wife in a racy MTV video. What a pair they are.
Yes, I would take back my Coakley vote (sorry, Martha) and give mine to Khazei, who didn’t have a chance but did have a spark.
Yes, Blame Boston. And I hear she could have pulled it out somehow if the Unions had waken up sooner.
Obama has his work cut out for him. Luckily, Caitlin and I feel he is reading our Blog for psychic advice. If you look at Caitlin’s ‘predictions’/perscriptions above, you will see that Gibbs and Obama quoted almost word for word–
Barack had got to dig deep. The great ones dig deep and bounce back, like Clinton after losing the House to Newt & co.
And I still do like ‘CoverAll’…
Hi busy commenters:
Hard to keep up with all the ‘intellectual firepower’ on the blog overnight but I’ll give it a shot.
*Thanks for the lively debating points, Piewacker and A.Nonymous and Penny2. I agree with P. that I too am sick of both parties fighting like children.
I also agree with one and all that Coakley was a lousy candidate. Her lack of charisma or even basic political smarts is a big part of why Brown won.
I certainly don’t think and never said that all Republicans are dumb. I respect the intelligence of Republicans like Olympia Snowe or even John McCain. But I have to take exception when you say:
“And what “intellectual firepower” has Obama demonstrated besides agreeing with your political viewpoints?”
Tons of liberals might agree with my viewpoints without having had one ounce of the impact Obama has had with his books and speeches. As a writer I have to defend the power of eloquence. Words matter. How a candidate makes their points matters. The eloquence of leaders like JFK, FDR and Obama plays a major role in their power.
Scott Brown has yet to utter a single memorable phrase or idea. His perscriptions are boilerplate Republican talking-points and knee-jerk negativism about Obama’s agenda.
Ever since he electrified the Democratic Convention with his keynote address, Barack Obama has been making a huge impact with his eloquence.
Facing down a weak candidate like Martha Coakley is child’s play. Mr. Brown has no idea what he will be up against with Obama. I am unimpressed with Brown’s intellect and ideas and it’s not insulting to anyone but Brown to state that.
It’s also not insulting to MA voters to state the obvious fact– which many many commentators have noted; see our new link to McGorey’s hilarious satire–that Brown’s looks and campaigning skills played a major role in his victory. So did Barack Obama’s. That’s politics.
We agree about the power of words and eloquence. So, I guess that makes John Favreau and the White House speech writing team brilliant. That still does not equate to Obama’s brilliance– he, like all modern Presidents, speaks the words that others write for him and his speeches are not an accurate barometer of his intellectual level.
It’s either that, or you agree that Reagan was brilliant because he gave great speeches.
PS: And to address what A.Nonymous mentioned about me saying ‘something is better than nothing’ on health care reform. I do think that if the alternative truly is no health care reform.
However, i agree with you and other commenters like Caitlin that if somehow we could go back to the drawing table and craft the bill with Public Option included (maybe re-named, as suggested playfully on this blog) then that would be my first choice. I just doubt that that could happen.
But if it could, I am all for that, all for adding the Public Option. But i doubt Sen. Brown will be any help on that front.
So we do have some points of agreement here in this commenting free-for-all… Thanks for the debate; wakes me up.
I think it’s great that this blog has attracted so many comments. Yay! Viva la difference!!
I agree, Caitlin–
it’s a hot day on the blog and good to have all this give and take-
I welcome voices from all views; while politix is not our usual ‘blog beat,’ it’s exciting to be chewing over the issues of the day this way–
Thanks for the positive ‘take’ on all this, Caitlin–
your voice is always one I love to ‘hear’ here in the fray–
xx- Elizabeth
Piewacket, gotta take issue with what you say about Obama’s words. I remember having this debate with a friend in publishing, who was sure Obama’s words were not his own in Dreams of My Father.
I have read quite a bit about this in response to this friend. Obama was not well known then. He managed to get a grant to write the book and was put in a small office (if I remember correctly, in the University of Chicago). And there he wrote it himself. It was not ghost written. I believe he also wrote most of the words of his famous race speech during the election.
Obama is not Favreau’s puppet.
Regarding health reform, I would like to quote a terrific letter I read in the New York Times on January 21 from a gentleman named John Oliver of Watertown MA: “The real losers [in this election] are 40 million Americans who came within a hair’s breadth of obtaining access to health care and if the Republicans have their way may well have to wait several more decades before a new Congress can muster the courage to discuss this again.”
I truly feel that the free market is good for lots of things that you buy on the free market (computers, automobiles) but is not so hot for health care. When insurers compete, they freeze out people who are not good risks. I had a terrific conversation with a young German recently who said his country has had universal health care for over a century (!) and it has lots of logical financial carrots and sticks built in. For example, a German who fills a cavity pays more if he has not visited the dentist every six months for the last few years.
Medicare is a popular program and a big success. The biggest hypocrites in this debate are elderly people who cheerfully use Medicare then deny it to those younger than them.
I remember Olympia Snow being willing to do an option that involved each state trying to save X amount without the public option. If they do not succeed, then the public option kicks in. If Scott Brown wants to survive his next election (just two years away), he should remember that he tapped into an anger in the electorate that is pretty undefined (after all hundreds of thousands of Mass voters voted for Barack for change just 14 short months ago then voted for Scott Brown this time).
So if those hundreds of thousands see him veer sharply to the right, they might not like that either (they have proven themselves a pretty fickle bunch, picking the most charismatic candidate both times–Barack over McCain, Scott over Martha–but not giving them any guidance as to WHAT change they want).
Being a REAL PROBLEM SOLVER that joins with Olympia Snow to find something palatable to a couple of Republicans–that could be change Massachusetts ends up believing in.
The debate above about who is smarter–Barack or Scott–is quite subjective. Both have great political minds in their own way. Barack shares my strategy for addressing society’s ills and Scott shares Piewacket’s. I recently viewed Broadcast News again (one of my five favorite movies of all time). William Hurt has a high Emotional Quotient in that movie just like Reagan did. Reagan surrounded himself with great speech writers and delivered them with a beauty and subtlety that “smart” John Kerry or Michael Dukakis could never summon up even on their best days (just like Hurt at the end of the movie making Holly Hunter his managing editor). When I was young and more opinionated, I thought Hurt was a bad guy and Hunter and Brooks were good guys. But Hurt ends up realizing what he needs to succeed at the end and putting Holly in just the position of power she should be in (she would be a lousy anchor!)
There are lots of different types of intelligence that makes a great politician. Obama has a lot of both types of intelligence and I remain grateful to have him as president.
Elizabeth-
Nowhere in my post did I claim he had not written his book. You had cited his speeches as proof. With the exception of his “breakout” speech given at 2004 convention, he has had speech writers to assist him in sounding eloquent. (And if you don’t think Clinton’s writers helped “spruce up” that speech, then you are hopelessly politically naive) In interviews he sounds no better spoken than many a good politician.
I’m not saying that Obama is unintelligent. Obviously someone who graduates from Harvard Law School magna cum laude is quite intelligent. I’d also argue that anyone who makes it to the Presidency has got to have intelligence, whether it be an intellectual or emotional variety.
Perhaps it’s a failing on my part but I truly can not understand blind devotion to any political candidate, party or ideology.
Penny2-
Where did I say or even hint that he was Favreau’s puppet? Elizabeth asserted that Obama’s speeches are a measure of his brilliance. I simply pointed out the serious flaw in her premise and took her argument to its logical conclusion:
Giving great speeches= brilliance
Reagan gave great speeches
Therefor Reagan must be brilliant
Now, if anyone on this blog wants to concede that point, then I’ll accept her premise.
Also- can you please point out where A. Nonymous was condescending to you or questioned your intelligence? I really don’t see it.
It appears as if the trend here is to paint A. Nonymous and I as right wing nuts who abhor Obama and any “liberal” policies. I fail to see why the fact that both of us are for health care reform continues to be ignored. Just because we don’t want this abomination of a plan to pass does not mean that we are against reform and some sort of coverage for everyone.
Can anyone remember the days when folks actually paid to see their doctors? I think a HUGE part of the health care issues started when insurance became more wide spread and we went to managed care. Insurance used to be used only for major illnesses and hospitalizations. Then it started to be used for routine medical visits. This led to a state where insured folks viewed their doctor visits as essentially free, with maybe a small co-pay. We don’t question why tests and procedures are ordered. We don’t take care of ourselves physically because we can always go to the doctor and get a pill to alleviate any self-induced medical issues.
Hi Piewacket:
Lots to comment on here but just to say a couple things:
*I get it that you and A. are for Health Reform; I’ve said several times that I totally agree with A’s articulate points about Public Option; I agree too that Obama should not have abandoned Public Option. What I was questioning A. about, just because ‘W’ brought it up and because I am curious too, is how someone can be passionately for Public Option and also passionately for Scott Brown.
*On Reagan and Obama: here’s my viewpoint, and it’s just my opinion:
sure, I agree with you and I think most people would agree that both Obama and Reagan are/were very gifted politicians, gifted speechmakers (and I don’t expect any politician to write every word they speak).
However: with Reagan, I feel he used his eloquence and political gifts largely to push ideas that were not only not smart, but disastrous for this country. That’s my view, but many economists look back to Reaganomics for the roots of our current woes. So I can’t say I think Reagan was ‘brilliant’ when I think many of his key ideas were just plain stupid and wrongheaded. I do think he was a ‘brilliant’ politician.
With Obama, I think he is both a brilliant politician and one whose views I mainly agree with (though again, at risk of over-repeating, I agree with A, about Public Option; that was a mistake and one I hope Obama will now rectify, if possible.
So we just disagree about the policies here but I think we can agree both Reagan and Obama are first-rate political talents.
I didn’t say anyone here on the blog is a right-wing ‘nut’ — these are hard times and people have a right to be riled up and looking for answers. I don’t have all the answers; I’m just curious to hear the different views stirred up by this recent election. And I’m very curious as an Obama supporter to see how all this plays out.
I agree both are first rate politicians. Actually, I am not making the argument that Reagan was brilliant. I don’t think he was.
But neither do I think Obama is brilliant. I’m not being sarcastic when I ask for proof of his brilliance.
If a politician wants me to sit down, shut up, blindly accept that they know what is best for me and this country and let them pass any legislation they want to pass without listening to their constituents , then I need to believe they are smarter than me.
It may be that I’m an egotistical bitch but I’ve yet to believe that of any politician in my lifetime.
Whoops forgot to respond to Anonymous.
There is a difference between a piss poor candidate and a piss poor senator.
I don’t know if this is true but I once heard an old Gary Hart staffer say Gary hated being out among the people but he had a brilliant mind for public policy. Martha also has a good enough mind that she won quite a few court battles.
(I’m sure Anonymous will now go on to tick off all the court battles she lost. That’s fine. She’s not perfect. You win that point Anonymous but go ahead and make it if you want to.)
She was also aggressively pro choice and that tends to be an important issue to me.
And here’s a statement that will light a fire under Anonymous: it matters to me what caucus a Senator is in. I know Ben Nelson is an exception, but much of politics is about voting blocks and I want to know she is on Harry Reid’s voting block. And no matter how condescending Anonymous gets, I don’t think that is stupidity on my part. A Senate body is not just 100 individuals with 100 individual life experiences–it is also people who have gathered as groups (in this country called the Republicans and Democrats) who have platforms. And I happen to agree with the Democratic platform far more often than the Republican.
I’d put my own IQ any day up against one of the 850,000 who voted for Scott Brown just 14 months after they vote for Barack Obama. What change do they believe in? The prettiest face of the moment? The most charming guy?
I’d love to hear from one of those voters on this blog.
And I have already admitted regret for voting for Martha in the primary. I too would have liked a better candidate and should have voted Capuano in the primary.
Oh, and Piewacket–on the centerfold issue I can’t think of a person I agree with more than Globe columnist Joan Vennochi who dryly observed that Martha Coakley did not have the option of posing nude at 22 and then becoming a US Senator. If Scott Brown is the first nude centerfold who ever became a Senator, I hope that the second is a woman (don’t hold your breath).
Penny2-
LOL I won’t hold my breath either. The old double standard for the sexes is alive and well.
THANKS Penny2 for this very deep and thoughtful comment– I agree 100% with what you are saying here!
P.wacker: glad to hear we agree on the power of eloquence. But I don’t see why when it comes to Obama you have to jump to the conclusion that it’s all his speechwriters whereas with Reagan– who clearly didn’t write or even claim to write his own speeches– you want him declared a genius.
I totally agree with Penny2: sure, Reagan was a gifted speechmaker/performer and that was a huge huge part of his power. In fact he was so gifted as a super-Salesman that he talked the country into believing an incredibly STUPID and destructive economic ‘theory,’ what Bush Sr. so memorably dubbed VOODOO ECONOMICs, the idiotic trickle-down tax-breaks-for-the-rich approach that we are still struggling to recover from today.
Did Reagan have other better ideas? Yes, I give him credit for cleverly talking tough on the Soviets while really making moves toward peace. Just like I’d give Nixon credit for opening up China. There is good and bad in all these guys but you really don’t seem to be able to see any good in Obama if you can’t even give the guy credit for his words.
Clearly, even speaking off the cuff, he is highly articulate and intelligent. Why deny something so obvious?
Anyway, good articulate discussion here on the blog. I do wish Barack or Michelle or someone at the White House would read Penny2 and follow her words of wisdom!
To A.Nonymous:
Yeah, and what great things Scott Brown is going to do to Public Option–
Oh yes, I know Scott Brown is ‘saving us’ from the evil Socialists. But you support Public Option and yet Scott Brown wants to destroy Public Option.
Yes, exactly my question, W.
I too have been wondering how one obviously intelligent (to use our blog buzzward of the week)
commenter can be a passionate supporter of Public Option and of Mr. Anti-Health-Care-Reform Scott Brown.
I get it that Brown is a game-changer and may force all parties back to the table on Health Care. But once at the table,
he will be doing everything in his power to halt any reform. And he is going to have an awful lot of power given the present make-up of the Senate.
Wouldn’t a more likely route to better reform and ultimately a Public Option (which I agree w/ you on) have been to pass the current flawed plan and then let it evolve into an improved plan, as Social Security and Medicare evolved after being passed in early and highly criticized forms? I too hope we find our way back to Public Option, but i sure don’t see Scott Brown helping with that in any way, once he gets to DC.
I can understand casting a ‘strategic’ vote for Brown just to scuttle the current Health reform plan, but can’t understand being a passionate supporter of both Public Option and Brown. So I appreciate W. bringing up that question.
Lots of juicy discussion here on the Blog this week– Elizabeth
Obama stopped supporting the public option when he ditched it from the national insurance mandate.
I never called anyone a socialist. That’s in your imagination, that everyone who voted for Brown is against the socialists. The voters of Massachusetts already have an insurance mandate, which the majority hate BTW. It’s not insurance for all. It’s an order for everyone to have health insurance or be forced to pay a tax penalty at tax time. The only people who qualify for MassHealth are the welfare people who got it before. Welfare still exists. It’s only called different names now: Section 8 housing, WIC, MassHealth, free cable, free dental, free phone, car sometimes. Sounds like welfare to me. The national insurance mandate would be pretty much the same as the one in Massachusetts. The nly change is that you would pay more for your insurance like the people in Massachusetts do now. How does that sound like reform?
The people in Massachusetts voted on state issues. We are not only focused on healthcare.
It is clear that you are all the way to the left and will never listen to anyone who is in the middle. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you or vote the way you do is stupid from your posts. You share this thinking with the Democrats who have run Massachusetts for the past three decades. The Massachusetts voters are voting for change because the people who are supposed to represent us don’t listen to us. If the Democrats don’t start listening, expect more Democrats to be voted out of office in November.
Hi A.Nonymous:
I agree with you that Obama should not have ditched Public Option. And sure, I’d admit to being a liberal from a longtime liberal family. Politics is not really my ‘beat’ at all, but takes over the blog when a media ‘star’ like Brown or a disgraced star like Edwards pops into the spotlight. I never called any voter or commenter stupid– I’m asking questions and in this case echoing a reasonable question asked by ‘W’ because we are both curious about how you support both Public Option (which I am all for, and for the good reasons you detail) and Scott Brown (who is totally against any such option). Just wondering, that’s all.
But yes, I do have my own biases and Points of View, as bloggers usually do. I print all the comments I get and am always glad to hear other voices, but when I disagree, I say so– or try just to ask questions and get a sense of the other viewpoint. Anyway, that’s the aim. And I’m more at home with entertainment than politics, but it interests me when the two areas cross paths.
So yes, I am in agreement with everything you have said about the mess health care is and the need for the Public Option. What interests me is that Scott Brown– who you have been defending so ably here– would be in total disagreement.
So i think ‘W’ did bring up a good point and I was chiming in with W on that. Emotions are running high here in MA, I know; I can only hope the fervor will infect Obama and stir him to get his mojo back…
Do you think Obama would finally be turning his attention to the economy and job creation if Coakley had won? Brown’s victory has finally focused the President’s attention on what matters most to people: employment and the economy. You don’t have to love Brown, but you have to love that his victory may get this country back on course. That never would have happened if Coakley had won. It would have been business with usual with the Democrats in Massachusetts and Washington. You can’t deny that. I am grateful that Brown won so this focus on the economy can take place. Caitlin in her comments above was right about the economy. Obama has spent the last year focused on healthcare and pissed off the middle and lower socio-economic electorate that is going bankrupt or barely surviving paycheck to paycheck.
OK, there is a lot I agree with here. Yes, I’ve been saying that I wish Obama would read Caitlin’s comments/predictions. In fact, Caitlin and I have speculated here that maybe he IS reading them. I agree with the old Clinton mantra: It’s the economy, stupid– and yes, I think Obama has been losing sight of that.
(There’s a case to be made that Health reform is tied to the economy and many families going under due to Health disasters, but I don’t think Obama has made that case well).
So yes, I can see a silver lining here would be if this somehow does restart the Health Reform talks and process. And I certainly agree with the statement ‘You don’t have to love Brown.’ I don’t, to say the least. And I think he will be a big roadblock to real reform even if his election may be the catalyst that re-starts that process. So it’s complicated, but yes, I do see your point here about the election shaking up the game in what will possibly, ultimately, be a good way.
Glad to have a comment I can agree on since I do always enjoy your voice on the blog. I think the ‘common ground’ we can find between us is the wit and wisdom of our resident blog psychic and wise woman Caitlin.
Now if only Barack will listen to Caitlin too…
I hope that it does shake things up. And I truly hope that BOTH parties see the election for what it represents. It’s not a win for the Republicans and a loss for the Democrats.
Rather, it is the people (represented by Mass, citizens) screaming out like in the movie Network– “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.”
Both parties have been “taken over” by their far extremes while most Americans are closer to the center. And we really would like it if our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, represented us and our views.
As for Scott Brown, I don’t know his viewpoints well enough to like or dislike him. I’m just happy that the anguished scream of Americans has been heard at last and maybe our representatives will actually listen.
Hi Piewacket– Well, I’m glad we do agree on several things– the shake-up might ultimately produce some good changes, especially if it shakes up Obama personally. Also I’m glad we agree both Obama and Reagan were first rate politicians. We even agree on Reagan NOT being brilliant!
I have to say you are setting a very high bar for ‘brilliant’ if no politician in your lifetime can meet it…To me, Bill Clinton was very brilliant as a politician and leader (though clearly in his personal life he could be a total moron…) But I always loved hearing him field questions, knowing so much about everything and being able to explain it all so clearly.
Obama is not quite the virtuoso Clinton was in press conferences, but there is a grace, dignity and Zen-like calm in everything Obama does that has a powerful effect. To me, anyone who could pull off the historic and seemingly impossible feat of becoming America’s first African American president has got to possess a kind of brilliance. So he gets my ‘brilliance’ vote on that alone. We’ll see what he does with this great opportunity, ultimately. The ball is still up in the air.
A final statement of yours I agree with is about ‘not knowing’ Scott Brown– I don’t think any of us really know much about this guy who weeks ago was an obscure state senator, then after a lightning-quick primary run-off against a weak opponent is suddenly catapulted into a position of incredible power. Much more so than most Senators, he’s going to have tie-breaking votes on many life and death matters. But that’s politics.
As Penny2 points out, he’s only got two years to prove his critics wrong or I’m sure the flying-fickle-finger-of-fate that is the MA voting public will flick him away. Lots of material for lively blog discussions, at least… Thanks– Elizabeth
Not much time this morning, but I do have to take issue with two things anonymous said:
1. I believe there is a big difference between stopping support of the public option and giving into a political reality. Obama has been committed more than any president in my memory to engaging members of the opposite party, even as he pushes hard on a national agenda. He was committed to getting people with preexisting conditions on health care, achieving universal coverage AND controlling costs. I was sorry to see the public option go by the wayside because it was the cost controlling measure.
But I do want to see Americans with pre-existing conditions covered. In terms of universality, we are all forced to purchase automobile insurance to drive around in our states, why is this so different? But I will say this–I have always believed that it is foolish to force people to buy private plans because it hands more profits to those companies. That’s why I have saved my heartiest support for anyone (e.g. Howard Dean sometimes) who thinks health care should be expanded through an expansion of Medicare (e.g. down to 55, then lower in the future). Every decade you add to that also takes care of a lot of people with prexisting conditions.
I write this without having read the whole back and forth but gotta go.
Car insurance is a horrible comparison. People who choose to buy a car have to buy car insurance. If you can’t afford the car or the insurance, then you aren’t forced to buy anything.
All people whether they want it or not have to buy health insurance in Massachusetts. If they don’t provide proof of health insurance at tax time, they have to pay a fine of several thousand dollars.
You are aware that Massachusetts pays among the highest rates (if not the highest) in car insurance and health insurance, right?
Its sad that you have brainwashed into thinking that Obamacare will provide affordable healthcare for people. It is not “reform.” It is a national insurance mandate like Massachsetts. As I have written many times, as you continually choose to ignore, no one new qualified for MassHealth after the insurance mandate happened in Massachusetts. Why don’t you take the eligibility test at the MassHealth site and see who qualifies: http://www.massresources.org/MassHealth_Eligibility_test.cfm?contentID=35&pageID=13&subpages=yes&dynamicID=567.
You will see that unless you are an unwed mother, disabled, an illegal, or totally destitute, you will not qualify The middle class does not qualify for MassHealth. Neither does the working poor.
I am not going to discuss this anymore as I keep having to say the same thing again and again and the liberals aren’t getting it. You are the reason Independents, moderate Democrats, and Republicans voted for Scott Brown. You refuse to see or hear what’s happening.
I actually hope this refusal to hear or see the truth continues. I want all incumbents to be voted out of office, regardless of party, in November. Send a big message to Washington that these people work for us. I want term limits. I want a fund so anyone can run for office, not just millionaires. Make things an equal playing field. Our way of government is falling apart. We need to start voting on issues and not according to party. In an ideal world, we’d be post-party by now and vote for the candidate and what he or she has to say.
Go ahead and respond to this post, but I’m not going to read your responses or reply. You simpy don’t get it.
Hi A.Nonymous:
Glad to have this information up on the comments; glad to have Penny2′s info and opinions too. I will leave it up to Penny2 if she wants to reply. But her own opinion is offered up in a helpful way. Obviously this is a complicated issue that all sorts of great minds are arguing over and disagreeing about.
I don’t think there are easy answers here. And I think those who take the trouble to post their thoughts on the blog are open-minded folks who are usually willing to ‘give and take.’
Meanwhile, maybe something we can all agree on: Frank Rich has words of wisdom on the ‘Massachusetts Massacre’:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24Rich.html?
Thanks to one and all for making this Scott Brown free-for-all our most-commented post….
The person “A.nonymous” is spouting out all kinds of false information here. Even worse, blurring reality in order to make a point.
Here are the facts (pesky things aren’t they):
Mass residents are not fined “several thousand dollars” for ducking health insurance.
This is from a Globe article last year: (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/01/01/penalties_to_rise_for_shunning_insurance/)
For instance, those 26 and younger who earn too much to qualify for low-cost insurance and who go the whole year without coverage would pay a $672 penalty. Those 27 and older would pay $912, the maximum. Those who have coverage for part of the year would pay a corresponding amount of the penalty.
In addition, those who earn less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level, or $15,324 for an individual, won’t face penalty.
AND
As for the more egregious false statement that only people who are ‘destitute’ qualify for insurance:
‘MassHealth’ is NOT the program which Massachusetts set up for the middle class. ‘MassHealth’ is an insurance program that’s been around much, much longer than the programs set up specifically for the health insurance mandate (Commonwealth Care). ‘MassHealth’ covers the unemployed, those with HIV, and single mothers (these are the majority).
MassHealth is a different program than Commonwealth Care entirely, which is the insurance Massachusetts specifically set up for the mandate, affordable insurance which DOES cover those in the middle class.
A.nonymous provided a link for ‘MassHealth’, NOT for Commonwealth Care Plans (Network Health, Neighborhood Health…etc), which are the plans specifically targeted at the middle class.
Tsk, tsk mister a.nonymous.
Hi Johnnycakes and thank you for the links and info. There is so much info. and so many charges flying around right now, it’s definitely a Mass. mess and a US mess. I appreciate that everyone’s offering up their say on the blog– this is going to be fought out at much higher levels, of course, and I guess one positive thing that can come from the election is a whole new detailed discussion on all this, with everyone going ‘back to the table.’ Thanks for coming back to the blog with all this–
Elizabeth
Oh, here’s the link which distinguishes between ‘MassHealth’ and ‘Commonwealth Care’ (Network Health):
http://www.network-health.org/Community—Enrollment-Guide/FAQ/Frequently-asked-questions.aspx
The “middle class” who qualify for Commonwealth Care are actually considered poor in Massachusetts, if you look at the salary cut-off.
You are aware of the cost of living in Massachusetts, aren’t you? The taxes? The cost of housing?
The majority of people in Massachusetts aren’t making it. They are angry. They don’t qualify for this Commonwealth Care, MassHealth or any of the programs that assist illegals and generational welfare types. Why don’t you ask someone making $50K a year before taxes if they can any assistance with healthcare? They can’t. If you think $50K is a lot, then you obviously don’t live in Massachusetts. Half the paycheck is gone before it reaches you, thanks to Fed and State tax, social security, etc.
Barney Frank’s own district voted for Scott Brown. Expect an unpheaval in November.
Tsk, tsk to you for calling me a liar. I’m not. You’re a smug elitist. I hope you stay that way, because it’s people like you who are driving Independents to vote the status quo out of office. The joke’s on you.
So you’re saying people in Massachusetts (namely those who voted for Scott Brown) aren’t happy with healthcare, and their vote was a vote against “obamacare.”
A new Washington Post Poll (and Rasmussen poll is close to the same, a poll which almost always leans right) says this is NOT the case. The WaPo poll says 68 percent of voters, including 51 percent of Brown voters approve of Massachusetts’ health care reform.
Links to both follow the comment:
This “referendum” on health reform meme has become near-conventional wisom, with the media and even some Democrats echoing it. But a new Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll undermines this assertion. The poll suggests that while the election was a “protest of the Washington process,” it was not a rejection of progressive policy. Only 11 percent of voters, including 19 percent of Brown voters, want Brown to “stop the Democratic agenda:”
- 70 percent of voters think Brown should work with Democrats on health care reform, including 48 percent of Brown voters.
- 52 percent of voters were enthusiastic/satisfied with Obama administration policies.
- 44 percent of voters believe “the country as a whole” would be better off with health care reform, but 23 percent believe Massachusetts would be better off.
- 68 percent of voters, including 51 percent of Brown voters approve of Massachusetts’ health care reform.
- 58 percent of all voters, including 37 percent of Brown voters, felt “dissatisfied/angry” with “the policies offered by the Republicans in Congress.”
A different poll, from Rasmussen Reports, cast doubt on the notion that Brown voters were primarily motivated by opposition to health care reform. The poll found that 52 percent of Brown voters said health care was their top issue, while an even greater percentage of people who voted for state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) — 63 percent — placed it first.
WaPo Poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/WaPoKaiserHarvard_MassPoll_Jan22.pdf?sid=ST2010012203176
Rasmussen Poll: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/first_look_at_massachusetts_election_night_poll_data
Now, now, Johnny Cakes , you are playing rather fast and loose with citing poll results.
For instance, question number four found that, of the Brown voters , 62% cited health care reform as extremely important in their decision to vote and an additional 33% cited it as very important. That makes a whopping 95% of Brown voters who clearly indicated that healthcare reform played a role in their decision. Since Brown made it very clear that he would vote against the current plan, a logical conclusion is that Brown voters do not want the current version of the “reform” plan.
Of course it does not logically follow that Brown voters are against any sort of reform, which is what A. Nonymous and I have been saying all along.
The poll also found that in the decision process, Brown voters considered:
91% jobs and economy as extremely or very important
84% federal deficit as extremely or very important
90% the way Washington is working as extremely or very important
It is patently clear that they were voting against the way things were being handled in Washington. And I am certainly not saying that they were voting for the Republican agenda. I am saying what I’ve been saying all along- Independents are sick and tired of political as usual. The extreme and obscene manner in which this version of healthcare was being crafted simply brought that anger and exasperation to the bubbling over point.
Now to the topic of this blog- the inference that Brown won , not because of political/ policies considerations but because Independents are weak minded ninnies who voted based on a candidate’s personality.
Well…
89% of Brown voters agreed that “the candidates’ leadership and personal qualities” played a role in their decision at an extremely or very important level.
My, my ,my it seems as if the OP was correct in her assessment. Except for some of those pesky little facts…
Guess what? 69% of Coakley voters agreed to that same statement.
AND- when asked to cite the single most important factor in their decision, 6% of Brown voters cited leadership/personality and 4% of Coakley voters cited the same.
So much for the extreme liberal meme that Brown won because of personality and looks.
Hi Piewacket:
This is an impressive array of statistics and I wouldn’t disagree that voter anger on these issues was a big part of the election. But as I said in my post, I think one factor– not the ONLY factor, but really the only one I feel ‘qualified’ to discuss on the blog– was personality and, yes, Brown’s looks, which he and his campaign milked for all they were worth.
Brown was hands-down a much better campaigner than the hapless Coakley (see the Saturday Night Live state of the union spoof that seals her fate as a famously disastrous candidate).
Also take a look at Obama very ably answering his Republican critics at last weeks caucus meeting. Brown is going to be facing a political giant in Obama, and while he may have made mincemeat of tone-deaf Coakley, he’s going to be in a whole new league in DC. We’ll see how he fares.
He’d better have something constructive to back up this image he’s constructed of himself or the voters will soon enough turn their guns on him too. It’s not enough to Just Say No.
To A.Nonymous and Johnnycakes:
Incredibly detailed debate here– I know the casual reader of the blog wouldn’t expect to find in-depth discussion of the health care crisis, but thanks to you two plus Piewacket and Penny2, we’ve got some meaty persuasive posts here.
I have to admit a lot of this is beyond me; I sure would not want to be making the decisions on this one. Let’s see what Obama has to say tonight and if he has in fact been reading Caitlin’s predictions and words of warning/wisdom on this most-comment-heavy post ever, here on the blog… Stay tuned.
To SCOTT from Odell List:
Now wait a minute…what does your big ass have to do with your penis? You know what, never mind. Just follow your heart, bro.
NOT WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT BODY PARTS OF SENATORS
TMI ALREADY ON BROWN & CO.
I hear you Antistar– I’m with you on this one–
TMI, already, on Brown’s bod.
Am thinking of doing a post, suggested by CAITLIN, on when certain scandals reach the TMI point–
Like the John Edwards sex tape…
Anyway, I ‘feel your pain’–
I highly recommend devoting one hour to watching this amazing q and a between Obama and the house Republicans.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/obama-to-democrats-dont-play-it-safe/?hp
I have read more about the Scott Brown election in recent days and have learned that it was not about some voters voting for Obama in 08 and Brown in 10, but instead it was about different populations of voter getting out in Nov 08 and Jan 10. As a partisan person, I would fault the Obama voters for not voting for a person who did not campaign well even though she would support all of Obama’s policies.
Of course I also fault Martha. Wretched candidate. But she would have voted the way I wish she would vote, so I continue to mourn her loss.
So, Piewacket, you are demographically correct: Brown voters are not weak-minded people who went for one rock star in 08 and a completely different one in 10. It is all about turnout–and rock stars turn out the people who agree with them on policies and plodding politicians like Coakley do not.
Now I look forward to future Massachusetts candidates who inspire the cities of Boston and Worcester to turn out a twice the rate they turned out in January so that the candidates whose policies I agree with (see clip above) will win again.
HI Penny2:
Good to hear from you and yes, I agree, Obama answering the Republicans is great bracing political TV; I believe Obama is getting his game back–
Stay tuned and thanks for the link and upbeat outlook, Penny2–
Elizabeth
I really feel Obama’s pain here.
After all, he came in saying he wanted to not be partisan. To bring in the Republicans. So as one wag said on Scott Brown night, Obama handed all his winnings to Max Baucus who lost them in one protracted negotiation.
I know the words Obama believes he can never say. SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. But maybe if he has already decided he is going to be a great one term president rather than a mediocre two termer, he should just follow the advice of this woman who had a letter in the Boston Globe yesterday. Does he have 51 votes for single payer? Ram it through if he does. Use every procedural trick in the book (yes Piewacket–I know it would be like Bush ramming through the Iraq war EXCEPT that this would be a legacy to be proud of, not a legacy to be ashamed of).
Go down in glorious flames in the 2010 and even possibly his own 2012 election–but then have the American people watch their health care costs plummet and eventually see he was right (does anyone in this celebrity obsessed culture even have such a long term memory?):
This was written by Dr. Carolyn Nikkal of Jamaica Plain and I retype it here so it may contain some typos:
****
Headline: A better approach. Ahem: single payer.
During the State of the Union address, President Obama said, “But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.” All over the globe, the answer has been loud and clear. A single-payer system of paying for health care works far better than the insurance company-based nightmare, covers everyone and would cost half as much per person as is currently the case in the United States.
For-profit insurers have made it apparent over the years that they do not care whether their customers live or die. We do not need to pass a bill that would give the same companies 30 million mandated customers who have no public option to buy into Medicare if they want to escape the grip of the vultures.
Open Medicare to all who want it. If anyone still wants corporate insurance, they could still choose it.”
****
Once the Medicare pool is opened up to younger less high risk people, costs for Medicare will go down. God–this could be his legacy, win or not in 2012. And, in my mind, a wonderful legacy it would be.
Excellent advice and article– yes, it’s becoming clear that the Original Sin in Health Care may have been backing off from Single Payer. Hillary Clinton had warned that if you back off from 100% coverage, the health reform pie gets nibbled away to nothing.
While I do not want Obama thinking in terms of ‘one term,’ I agree it’s time to be bold here, to gamble and win back some trust and momentum– saying those ‘two little words’ may be the one way to do that– Come on, Barack, ‘just say Single Payer…’
Listen to Penny2. Thanks Penny for giving a note of hope here– Elizabeth