January 18, 2010

Let's read the full text of Obama's pro-Coakley speech.

Ah! I found the full text of the remarks Barack Obama made in Boston yesterday. Reading earlier news reports, I was struck by the lack of anything actually about Martha Coakley, the candidate he came to support. That's why my blog post last night reads — was I too enigmatic? — "The personal touch turns chillingly impersonal." I got the impression that he mainly said the Democratic Party needed another vote in the Senate, and Coakley was the Democrat. Did he have anything specific to say about her? It was personal to travel to Massachusetts to help her out, but when he got there, it seems, he went impersonal, and only characterized her as a Democratic Party vote.

Now, I want to check out that impression by reading the whole speech.

The first section consists of generic cries of "Fired up!," introductory thank yous, references to his time living in Boston — Cambridge, really, wasn't it? — and an indirect reference to the Red Sox in the form of a reference to the White Sox. And that was an indirect reference to Coakley's cockup about Curt Schilling.

Finally, he's ready to talk about Coakley.
And today I've come to talk about one thing.
Coakley?
I've come to talk about Tuesday.
Oh, Tuesday!
On Tuesday, you have the unique and special responsibility to fill the Senate seat that you sent Ted Kennedy to fill for nearly 47 years. And I am here to tell you that the person for that job is your attorney general, Martha Coakley. (Applause.)
Finally, the name has been spoken.
Now, there's been a lot said in this race about how it's not the Kennedy's seat -- it's the people's seat.
He quotes Scott Brown's best line.
And let me tell you, the first person who would agree with that was Ted Kennedy.
Good. Play off Brown's line.
See, the only thing he loved more than the people of this commonwealth was serving the people of this commonwealth.
Huh? He loved the people, and he loved serving the people even more than he loved the people. Well, okay. Ted was a people guy, a man of the people, a servant of the people, really into serving. Servile as all get-out.

There follows a paragraph about all that Ted did for the people. That segues into the representation of Martha Coakley as a woman of the people — "raised in North Adams, one of five kids... worked her way up..." — who has worked for the people. This is the part of the speech that is specifically about her as opposed to Obama's agenda and the need for another Democratic vote in the Senate. It is 2 paragraphs long and — I counted — about 7% of the total verbiage. He says:
Look at her record. As a prosecutor, she took on cases most of us don't even want to think about, putting murderers and child abusers away.
And the Amiraults too. Who wants to think about that?!
As attorney general, she took on Wall Street and recovered millions for Massachusetts taxpayers -- (applause) -- took on predatory lenders that were taking advantage of Massachusetts families. She went after big insurance companies that misled people into buying coverage only to deny it when they got sick. She went after big polluters who put the health of your family at risk. Time and again, Martha has taken on those who game the system at expense of hardworking, middle-class families.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let's go, Martha! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's the kind of leader the people of Massachusetts need now more than ever. (Applause.) You need somebody -- (audience interruption) --
Oh, here's where that heckling takes place and Obama takes forever to end the disruption, with the audience eventually coming in with booing and then a "Fired up!" chant. You can look at the clip here. I can't figure out what the guy is yelling. "One more [???]!" One more Chevy?

Hmmm. I kind of get the feeling Obama is glad to be interrupted there. Sort of: Oh, good, now I don't have to talk about Martha Coakley anymore. Just let this play out. Maybe I'll look like the underdog and people really will get fired up.

Hmmm. Any chance the interruption was a scripted part of the presentation?

Finally, he gets back to his prepared remarks. Conveniently, he's through with the details about Martha. He tells us we need "somebody who has fought for the people" because times are tough. He's got something to say about "Martha's opponent":
He's driving his truck around the commonwealth -- (laughter) -- and he says that he gets you, that he fights for you, that he'll be an independent voice. And I don't know him, he may be a perfectly nice guy. I don't know his record, but I don't know whether he's been fighting for you up until now, but --
So he doesn't know anything about the guy he's about to tear down, but please laugh at the man who drives a truck. He doesn't worry that the truck might backfire. It becomes a theme in the next section:
Forget the truck. (Laughter.) Everybody can buy a truck. (Laughter.)...
... I'd think long and hard about getting in that truck with Martha's opponent. (Laughter.) It might not take you where you want to go....
Now, the repeated recurrence of the truck may be a good distraction, because this section of the speech is incoherent. Obama wants to tell us that the Democrats will build up the economy and cut taxes the right way, but he also demonizes business and wants us to reject Republicans because they are on the side of business. The key seems to be to distinguish between small business and Wall Street bankers. In this framework, it's hard to explain all the money — tax money — that we — including the Democrats — handed to bankers:
It was your tax dollars that saved Wall Street banks from their own recklessness, keeping them from collapsing and dragging our entire economy down with them.

But today, those same banks are once again making billions in profits and on track to hand out more money in bonuses than ever before, while the American people are still in a world of hurt.
So you helped the banks, but you don't want to say it was great that the help worked. Do you want them to succeed or not? Would it be better if we all suffered together?
Now, we've recovered most of your money already, but I don't think "most of your money" is good enough. We want all our money back. We're going to collect every dime. (Applause.) That's why I proposed a new fee on the largest financial firms -- to pay the American people back for saving their skin.
What is the connection between a "new fee" and getting all our money back? Isn't it great that we've got most of the money back, and isn't it enough to get the rest the money back? Why the fee? To punish success? To my ears, it's a non sequitur.
But instead of taking the side of working families in Massachusetts, Martha's opponent is already walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans, opposing that fee, defending the same fat cats who are getting rewarded for their failure.
But you didn't explain the fee. You're demonizing the bankers — "fat cats" — the very people that you gave our tax money too. And how are they "getting rewarded for their failure" if the bailout worked? Why aren't you pleased with the effective use of our tax money? It's incoherent.
Now, there's a big difference here. It gives you a sense of who the respective candidates are going to be fighting for, despite the rhetoric, despite the television ads, despite the truck. (Laughter.) Martha is going to make sure you get your money back. (Applause.)
Get our money back or impose that "new fee"? Scott Brown isn't against getting the bailout money back, is he? This is deliberate obfuscation, it seems.
She's got your back. Her opponent has got Wall Street's back. (Applause.)
That sounds nicely slogan-y, but what does it mean? You can count on Democrats to be hostile to business? How is it defending us to attack Wall Street, and if it is, why did you give so much of our money to Wall Street?

Obama wants to say that he's helping the economy:
We're forcing the banks finally to start lending again on Main Street, and not just worried about profits.
That's an attitude about the economy that people ought to examine. Forcing lending? Isn't that what led to the mortgage crisis? Don't we want banks to worry about profits so they don't go back to making all those bad loans? And don't we want the hope of profit to motivate people to take risks? Apparently not.
So understand what's at stake here, Massachusetts. It's whether we're going forward, or going backwards.

AUDIENCE: Forward!

THE PRESIDENT: It's whether we're going to have a future where everybody gets a shot in this society, or just the privileged few. If you were fired up in the last election, I need you more fired up in this election.
And with that, Obama makes the special election in Massachusetts into a referendum on the work he and the Democrats in Congress have been doing for the past year. You were excited about me, he says. You wanted change. If you want us to keep moving on in the direction we ran after you gave us the power, we need you to elect Coakley. The election transcends anything personal about her — or Scott Brown, whom Obama purports to know nothing about other than that he's a Republican (and has a truck).

Obama wants that vote, and that vote comes in the form of Martha Coakley. It's the "people's seat," as Scott Brown called it, but it's the Democrats who are for the people — and against business (unless it's small!) — so fire up and vote for Martha.

246 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 246 of 246
Penny said...

Speaking of Corzine...

Ritmo said "Face it. We're all just playing a numbers game. (Which should, technically, put Republicans at a disadvantage..."

That's very true, and very scary...EXCEPT...

What's going on these days in politics is no longer about the dems and the reps. It's about a whole helluva lot of pissed off voters who are sick and tired of being knee deep in the bull and getting more broke as each day goes on.

Penny said...

Oh, sorry, I forgot to get back to Corzine there.

He was my governor, and in this blue state, I went to bed the night before the election thinking there was no hope for Chris Christie to actually pull off a win.

When the vote was tallied, I realized, maybe for the very first time, just how many people are as pissed off as I am.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Let them be.

If their fucking attention deficit disorder leads them to believe that the same bubble they had multiple, continuous financial orgasms over will be fixed in one year, then they're delusional.

The electorate is simply delusional. They need political Ritalin.

It works like this. First the economy stabilizes somewhat (check). THEN, we enact financial reform (in progress). THEN, the economy grows based on incentives other than the repeal of Glass-Steagall, CDOs, and home ownership for everyone. How? Energy might be a start. Too much of the economy was resting on a house of cards, a mirage. It needs time to rebuild itself based on something that won't evaporate and represents REAL value.

Here's an example of how fucked up the Republicans have made this economy: With all the businesses that have gone under and the growth of online services, there is so much retail space available it's not even funny. So much of that could be converted to residential. This is beside the point but it gives you an example of how inefficient and warped a market became. Don't listen to the dumb Republicans who think that freedom is a value-free concept - in the market economy or otherwise. If they had the brains to govern, lead and make sure the regulation wasn't all fucked up, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But it's not going to happen soon. We are in for a long-term transition politically. The legislators are already back to showing their true colors, and the Republicans are shameless enough to want to make us believe that Keynesian economics is wrong and that tax cuts, balanced budgets and stable entitlement spending can co-exist. They're willing to lead the country into financial ruin once again - that's how severe their lust for power really is. These prom queen wanna-bes need to be cut off at the pass.

The way it's going to happen is with the fucking lawyers. They make up the largest profession in the legislative bodies, and they're the ones who have co-mingled the premature ejaculators of Wall Street (and their cheap imitators here) with the nation's interest. But now they're SOL. Law school grads who used to make $160,000/year right out of school are unemployed. They're having to do the traditional pro-bono work, hitting the streets, Atticus Finch stuff... you know, actually working for people who could use legal representation.

Once their generation comes of age, then it's possible we'll have a legislative body that sees the need to refrain from whoring themselves out and actually separates the needs of the nation's economy from the need of an investor to make a quick buck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/fashion/17lawyer.html?em

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Sorry. Here's that link.

Kirby Olson said...

At least let us have a senator who can spell the name of the state.

vbspurs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patm said...

I'm so glad I didn't vote for this empty suit.

traditionalguy said...

C-4 @4:33...That is 100% correct about Max Cleland. He was a very nice man, a native of Atlanta, who suffered thru a terrible tripple amputee injury that alone made many Georgians willing to give him a cushy job as an elected state officer as Secretary of State of Georgia, for life if he had wanted it. Jimmy Carter had appointed him VA Adm'r and then he ran and won the Sec'y of State job for the next 14 years. But he was restles and he let the national Democrats lure him into a Senate seat run and the poor fellow won it on Bill Clinton's 1996 victory coattails, again mostly for sympathy reasons. When in DC he morphed into a believer in the power of the national Democrats and in 2002 he forgot to run as a faux moderate Democrat. And the more he begged for his entitlement to his usual sympathy vote, the less anyone wanted to see his face anymore. Needless to say Max had always sold every vote he made to the highest bidder as he really believed was his right to do as a survivor. We wish him well. He was and is a very likable man who survived a horrible hurt in his life better than most men have done.

George said...

---They can have dueling covers on Cosmo and Maxim.---

Ah, a real liberal intellectual analysis. Way to go!

Johanna Lapp said...

Garage Mahal: The only "fake" soldiers Rush ever spoke ill of were Winter Soldier pals of John Kerry who had NEVER served in the armed forces, plus one guy who was washed out of basic training and given a psych discharge.

He never called "fake soldiers" the self-so-called "Vietnam vets" whose records proved they had never gone overseas. He just called them liars. Most now call themselves "Vietnam-era vets."

The "fake soldier" complaint is crap. Pure crap.

Fen said...

Jeremy: if you spent less time whining and bitching

Now you guys have put Jeremy in a loop, and he's talking to himself again.

Jeremy don't fret. Even if the bill fails, we're all going to make damn sure you get the help you need.

And no Jeremy, you cant suck my balls.

traditionalguy said...

Ritmo@ 6:50...That was a very good analysis of what happened under Bush and Clinton. The visionaries always admitted that world trade was going to send all production of products overseas, but then went on to promise Retraining of American workers. That was smoke and mirrors like Green Jobs being promised them today. So the Dot Com Bubble and Saving the world from Y2K expenditures were able to mask the problem until June 2000 when we started sliding down fast. Then after 9/11 Bush put war goals over economic sense and weakly murmured "no, no, don't" while he frankly let Dodd and Frank blow up a housing bubble to finanace his wars. Now we are at the end of our ropes again unless someone goes back to encouraging the American production of goods again. That will mean removing the prohibitions and favoritisms now embeded in the legal system. Obama only plans
seem to be greasing the skids for our quick demise while his Communist International Comrades cheer him on. So what should a Rogue political approach to our children's and grandchildren's problems be?

George said...

---Was he a "real soldier" though? Was he part of "real" American even? I know with Rush, and conservatives, not all soldiers and people are real.---



You lie.

Marcia said...

Althouse said: "was I too enigmatic?"

For what it's worth, I understood you perfectly.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I don't have any answers on how to get America to produce more manufactured goods and I'm actually not that distressed at not having an answer for it. As long as the economy comes back to reality then we can stave off the collapse of the dollar, and perhaps more, but as I see it the whole problem is this idea of having a quick fix for everything in the first place. You may call Obama whatever pejorative you want, but at the end of the day I think he acknowledges - more than any other pol - that things will not be easy. Which other politician has the guts to say that? Which other politician could get away with saying that to the guys on the right? Any of them?

The first priority is that the entire economy needs to rebuild itself. Once that happens, I'm sure some companies that excel at manufactured goods will come into prominence once again -- think computers, phones and other hardware. So I think Obama is right to encourage an energy infrastructure that can grow and develop. But at that point we get into our disagreement over AGW. The way to build an energy infrastructure that can support the country is NOT by basing it off of resources that will dry up in a few decades or, at most, a few centuries - whatever you personally think about the science and politics of carbon in the ecosystem notwithstanding. We can put windmills up in so many more places than we can oil derricks. And most of Silicon Valley would probably prefer NOT to have to commute to ANWAR on a daily basis. But I digress.

If we take pride in cultural and social capital - as the Europeans have done, then I think the kind of value that makes for a market based on high-end manufactured goods will flourish once again. Why not? We're an established enough country to do that. But those things require that we take our time, looking around every now and then, smell the roses, and market things that sell our country in the form of something more durable and valuable than a 99 cent cheeseburger or a television program. We should look deeply into the problems we face and avoiding the temptation to turn the political scene into a daily rhetorical contest or the quality of life into a numbers game.

As far as how we go about infusing a sense of value into our work, I found a book like this also helps. Obviously you've got your view on the politics of all this and I've got mine. But I think everyone could use a more substantive look at what's gone wrong - one that goes deeper than just politics.

And thanks for your comment, BTW.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Oh, here's one quick answer: Vocational training. Not everyone should go to college. But the blue collar types understand the value of a social safety net, and tend to demand one, and your side is against that. But if we didn't crap on the value of manual labor, I don't think we would have created such a lust for things that only exist on paper, if at all...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Or let me put it to you this way -- (and I hate to turn this around into something political once again but I'm not sure there's any way to avoid it):

Look at Joe the Plumber. This guy thought he would be a millionaire. Now, how realistic is that? I make 6 figures, work in health care, and I'm not a millionaire. Granted, I'm still only in my thirties, but hopefully you get the point. Plumbers make... what..? 30k to 60k? Something like that? The guy wasn't going to get rich. More power to him if he founds a plumbing company, owns it, and becomes rich. But we all know he was dreaming more than he was planning.

My point is that if the guy wasn't putting so much thought into how to get rich off of something that practically no one gets rich off of, maybe he'd have had more time learning how to enjoy the idea of taking pride in his work. So would every manual laborer. But they're too busy having to worry about things that high-end manual laborers in other countries don't have to worry about. I, personally, don't give a flying fuck how Joe the Plumber and all the other Joe the Plumbers out their get their health care, whether it's through the market, through health exchanges, co-ops, medical boutiques, public option, whatever. But it seems hard to deny that if it weren't such a pain in the ass for them to acquire their basic social needs, maybe they wouldn't spend so much time dreaming that they'll excel at something they won't, and that the country doesn't need: Another speculator in one's own over-valued future.

You want high-end manufactured goods? Get Joe the Plumber to stop thinking that he should have to get rich in order to simply pay his bills and access basic services.

Methadras said...

grrizzli said...

It's not that difficult to understand why Obama mentioned "truck" at least five times. Driving a truck is a sin for people like Obama, his speechwriters, and white people in general. It's almost as bad as not recycling. Obama tried to emphasize one negative thing he knew about Brown.


It's actually worse than that and i apologize to people if someone else has said this already.

It's worse because a truck for President Barely and his ilk represents the unwashed masses and how he and his fellow elite look down on those that drive trucks because they view them as stupid, hick republicans or *gasp* conservatives. It's simply the elitist mentality and the little black jesus has definitely shown himself to be an effete snob that will poo-poo the little people because we drive trucks. He's a fucking asshole.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't have any answers on how to get America to produce more manufactured goods and I'm actually not that distressed at not having an answer for it. As long as the economy comes back to reality then we can stave off the collapse of the dollar,

Hey Kids!!!

I know!....if we all wish really really hard and clap our hands the economy/Tinkerbell will come back to life. LET'S TRY... come on....clap your hands.

Sheesh.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

I know!....if we all wish really really hard and clap our hands the economy/Tinkerbell will come back to life. LET'S TRY... come on....clap your hands.

Sheesh.


Or if your side has their way, they'll just subsidize the hell out of it, cut taxes on the industry, allow them to lobby their way into deregulating it to the point of chaos or anarchy... you know, the usual Republican bullshit.

By the way, Dust-Bowl Bunny Queen, it was Traditional Guy whom you were responding to. You knew that, didn't you?

I didn't know it was this easy to divide the right wing...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

By the way, Dust-Bowl Bunny Queen, it was Traditional Guy whom you were responding to. You knew that, didn't you?


Since I don't have time to read all 200 odd quotes....why don't you learn to "quote" with either quotation marks or italicized text. That way we can know when you are using someone else's words, even if not in context.

In any case....I don't care who said it. Just wishing isn't going to improve the economy and I'm not about to attempt to educate a dedicated ignoramus such as yourself on economics and free market principles.

Go read some Milton Friedman. I suggest you start with "Free To Choose". It doesn't have a lot of math and the words aren't all that big...you might be able to read it.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

How ironic that someone who flunks basic thread-reading 101 believes she's in a position to dictate my reading abilities.

This is not an exercise in Milton Friedman's advocacy of free-market economies. EVERY ECONOMY in the world is a mixed economy and YOU KNOW IT. There will be no libertarian dystopia, and laws that aren't intended to have any economic effects will affect the economy nonetheless. Culture will affect the economy, too. You'd have to have a social or psychological disorder to not get this.

Here's a hint... if murder were legal, the hitman and bodygaurding industries would experience a resurgence like you wouldn't believe. But we don't do that because we, as a society, have morals. Unlike you.

What you've been engaged in is showing your contempt for an electorate, for a country, whose interests you now pretend you care about. You might be able to fool people into following where your greed and drama and attention-deficit disorder leads you to next for a limited time, or while things are bad. But after your political dead-cat bounce in 2010 in won't matter anymore. People see through it.

Penny said...

Marcia said...

" Althouse said: "was I too enigmatic?"

For what it's worth, I understood you perfectly."

Thank you, Martha.

LOL Sorry, just couldn't resist!

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Oh... and Dear DBQ,

Stop being a stupid ideologue. This is about reality now. The day when investors ran the country is fast coming to a close. I know you're distressed, but that's too fucking bad. Boo Hoo. Anyone with a brain knows it's the lawyers who run the country. They're the ones that actually become, you know, legislators. And that's why Traditional Guy has the sense to read what I'm saying and accept that blind partisanship and a prostitution-ring with Wall Street will only get anyone so far.

Enjoy trying to convince people that you piss on that you have their best interests in mind. If you didn't have such a problem relating to people you would realize what a bad position that puts you in to think that way.

Methadras said...

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Or if your side has their way, they'll just subsidize the hell out of it, cut taxes on the industry, allow them to lobby their way into deregulating it to the point of chaos or anarchy... you know, the usual Republican bullshit.


Elaborate on how this deregulating anarchy and chaos as a function of lobbying will manifest itself on the manufacturing sector? Will people be running in the streets screaming into the night? Mass hysteria? Dogs and cats living together? What does it entail aside from the hysterical colon blow you've just farted out.

Penny said...

"It needs time to rebuild itself based on something that won't evaporate and represents REAL value."

Ritmo, honestly, I am listening, but as long as we are yelling at each other, I thought it only fair to point out how funny it was that you linked to the NYT's while making a point about evaporating "value". REAL value, no less!

Penny said...

Put on your helmets, folks. We are in for a very bumpy ride.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

If the dollar collapsed, it might. But don't let that precaution get in the way of your ignorance and delusion, Methadras. I know they keep you warm at night.

The only person I "yelled" at, Penny, was Dust Bowl Queen. She seems like a nice person, on the inside, but her fear of human nature has made her a very bitter, selfish person - and very deserving of rebuke. She seems to not conceive that there are things in life that consist of what my cousin, a very successful economist BTW, would refer to as "non-financial value". I get the impression that in Bunny's mind, almost everything can and should be chalked up to a dollar amount. I really don't think that such thinking reflects either reality or most people's values, however. As I said, I think she does it out of fear and a preference for dealing with numbers rather than dealing with people. Make of that what you will.

But the point is that self-interest has its limits. We should keep that in mind in this age of the most sophisticated network yet created: The internet. Network effects are important not just in our economy, but in how our society functions in other, basic ways. And politically.

And what is wrong with linking to the Times, anyway? They still write good articles every now and then. The article I linked to, I think, especially explains what has developed in one of the more important professions in America. I'm not sure you disagree with it.

If the Times doesn't find a way to generate the revenue it needs to sustain some good pieces every now and then, so be it. The printing and publishing businesses are in a huge state of transition. If the Times doesn't find a way to cope, so be it - but they are not the only one. They still write pieces that have pretty good value much of the time. How they will find a way to match that value with revenue is something that a lot of people are working on. Simply put, a lot of stuff is just easier to do and find out about than it used to be. I don't see the Times' financial situation as a reflection of its value as an institution, though, and I think few people do. That's why its situation made such big headlines.

But that's all rather beside the point.

traditionalguy said...

Ritmo...You are understanding the problem correctly, but you are still paralyzed from seeing the solution in front of your face. It is those 300 years supply of oil, gas, and coal that is SACREDLY made off limits to men due to carefully implanted Green Lovers myths about pollution in their Holy of Holies. When I snap my fingers you will wake up and no longer fear the truth about using energy to create industrial competivness. Keep things as clean as possible, but use the resources God has given us without fear of false guilt.

lucid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Brasileiro said...

TG,

No one around the world will be interested in finding ways to make fossil fuels more efficient.

Many people around the world will be interested in finding ways to make renewable energy much more efficient.

To me, putting our eggs in the former basket sounds like another quick fix... along the lines of credit default swaps, Enron, Ponzi schemes, and the rest of it. They won't come crumbling down tomorrow. But we'll have wasted another generation investing our country's infrastructure in something that is surely not only not in our country's interest, but that works against it in the long run.

Why is it that conservatives keep doing things that require the country to take radical, progressive steps to right itself? Why not just do the sensible thing all along?

I just don't get it.

I almost get the feeling of Chesteron reversed:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.

You guys would certainly seem to have taken up what Chesterton characterized as the progressive cause quite well. And for what? Why this crazy obsession with short-term gain? You know, Wall Street can afford to take its own gambles. But we're talking about the public interest here. There is no way you can privatize the national interest. No way to do it. Just ask someone who's been able to do both: Boone Pickens.

lucid said...

I feel that in the Massachusetts election we are taking our government back from a usurpation that was effected by a presidential candidate who campigned under entirely false pretenses and who has governed as a ruler rather than as a representative. I am really excited!!!

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Scott Brown will certainly do an incredible job of representing Wall Street, lucid. And if the selfish people of Massachusetts -- (We already have health care. Fuck the rest of the country!) -- feel that Wall Street is their representative, then they'll fully deserve the economic hole we'll all remain mired in.

But everyone knows that in two years they'll have found a way to have gotten rid of this temporary, talentless, token scallywag anyway and replaced him with one of their typical liberals. Who do you think you're kidding?

It's not like any revolt against Obama in Massachusetts (as opposed to a revolt against progressive politics) wouldn't be without historical precedent. We know what you guys are about up there.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

The good people of Massachusetts are not always all that rational or right, now, are they?

Sometimes they just go with their beliefs.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

More here.

Nora said...

Why to expect from somebody talk about the candudate, especially from Obama? After all he won precisely because nobody actually talked about him, except being community organiser, clean eloquent and somesuch things. There was nothing of substance to say about him or his record. Actually he was an empty pot impersonated. He still won. So he is right to assume that being Democratic party candidate is enough for winning the elections

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Good point, Nora! Scott Brown is the most accomplished politician EVAR!!! Like, with that nude spread and all, I just feel he has done so much for the people of his state!!! Like, Wow and stuff.

Is there a way to change the acronym of GOP to convey that it has become the party of American Idol?

It really is a party... in the most festive, raucous, unserious and orgiastic sense of the word.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Personally, I think Scott Brown is great for the new image of the GOP.

Now, everyone will know the letters G.O.P. as the Greedy Onanism Party... of Navel-Gazers!

Go Scott Brown!

Go Greedy Onanism Party!!! Restore fiscal insanity to the republic... even though you didn't quite kill it off just yet, you'll soon get your chance!

Greedy Onanism Party!!!

traditionalguy said...

Ritmo...The sole reason that industrial production of the things we need to live has gone west across the wide Pacific is low costs of production due to dirt cheap labor. Reverse that by cheap energy here in the USA and see what can be done that way. You repeatedly disavow quick fixes as if we have any time left. That reminds me of this weekends Haiti crisis when the Sec'y of Defense cautiously refused to help out by sending the obviously needed air drops of food and water out of Ft Bragg, "because there could be disorder" if starving people had access to food and water. The Idiot was educated in being perfectly right beyond his intelligence level that could see what was in front of his face.

el polacko said...

if coakley manages to pull this one out, i believe that mary jo kopechne would think that it was all worth it. /

oh and ... TRUCK !!!!

master cylinder said...

Yeah Rebecca, that's why he hangs out with those super rich Harvard banking guys.

Skookum John said...

@Ritmo: Good luck holding onto the seat once Brown's lived out his use.

If it's two and out for Brown, but he destroys the Obama presidency, I think he'd take that deal. I know I would.

Skookum John said...

@Ritmo: "The electorate is simply delusional. They need political Ritalin."

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Skookum John said...

I don't have any answers on how to get America to produce more manufactured goods and I'm actually not that distressed at not having an answer for it. As long as the economy comes back to reality then we can stave off the collapse of the dollar, and perhaps more, but as I see it the whole problem is this idea of having a quick fix for everything in the first place.

Um Ritmo, the collapse of the dollar is the only thing that WILL bring back American manufacturing. The sooner it happens the better.

kentuckyliz said...

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the Senate race.

If you can't stand the heat, pull the hot curling iron out of your ass.

Marsha Marsha Marsha!!!

Jack said...

The back door deals of the Democratic Pelosi party and the slight of hand off-topic misdirections of President Obama are akin to the Red Chinese, North Korean, Stalinist tactics that lead to a totalitarian state across north and western Asia. A socialist mandate that stifled the people and led to a gov't run state that rules by fear to maintain control. Sure the Republican leadership made drastic changes to the law by presidential mandate but we are at war and those decisions were made to protect us, the people of the United States of America. Land of the FREE, home of the BRAVE, and people who stand up for injustice and behind those who are oppressed.

All I can see in the future of this country, if Pelosi and Obama have their way, is nothing but the strife of an Eastern Block country oppressed by a gov't that rules with a sickle and a hammer. Where back room deals guarantee their strong hold on power and the constitution is nothing but a sheet of toilet paper to be thrown away as it is bastardized and dirtied with mandates.

It is time to issue a Magna Carta Libertatum to those who represent us and mandate that they abide by our wishes not by those of the party who wish to oppress us. The way to proclaim this is to vote into office a new congress and remove the deadwood who are sucking us dry.

Mandate that any health care bill apply to all registered citizens of the US to include those in congress.

Mandate that term limitations be applied to all seats in congress as they were to the Office of the President.

Mandate the ability to vote for a means to remove a senator or representative who takes the office and abuses the power granted by the people who elected him/her, even in the middle of a term.

Mandate accountability for promises made on the campaign trail to ensure the promises are realistically portrayed and not just made to gain a vote. A promise is a promise and a snake oil salesman is a snake oil salesman. Make the distinction and make them accountable or tar and feather them and run them out of office.

My land is free, my choices are my own and I don't want or need mandated healthcare or mandated anything. If I'm lazy I chose to be. If I'm industrious I chose to be. It's my choice granted by those who made this country free through service and "self sacrifice."

In order to be neutral:

Bless you all, Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Agnostic, Buddhist, or any other faith or lack of. You were given the choice, you'll reap the reward for that choice.

I've said my piece. Peace out!!!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 246 of 246   Newer› Newest»