Sick to his stomach
A faux conspiracy in the Massachusetts Senate race
Sick to his stomach
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Scott Brown would truly make history in Massachusetts next Tuesday if he captures Ted Kennedy's old seat in the special U.S. Senate election. Put simply, the deeply blue Bay State has never chosen a senator with Brown's right-wing Republican credentials.
Massachusetts voters last elected a Republican senator in 1972, when Ed Brooke - a moderate African-American - won his second term. Brooke's Republican predecessor was Leverett Saltonstall, a moderate who traced his Yankee roots to the Mayflower. Indeed, successful Massachusetts Republicans (including governors Mitt Romney and Bill Weld) have tended to be fiscally tight but socially tolerant.
Scott Brown is new school all the way, hewing to the national Republican orthodoxy. He's a favorite of the anti-abortion activists. He has come out in favor of water-boarding. He questions whether humans have caused global warming. As a state senator in Boston, he once championed - unsuccessfully - a legislative amendment that would have allowed religiously-devout medical personnel to deny emergency contraception to rape victims. He opposes civilian trials for terrorists (naturally, without acknowledging that the Bush administration tried the shoe-bomber, and the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, in civilian court).
But, most importantly, Brown is tapping one particular GOP staple - the fear/paranoia/grievance factor - and taking it one step further. Typically, Republicans allege that they're being screwed in the aftermath of balloting (sore-loser Al Gore was trying to steal the '00 presidential election, Al Franken was trying to steal the '08 Minnesota Senate election, that sort of thing). Brown, by contrast, is floating the claim that he's being pre-screwed, even before the balloting.
As mentioned in this space the other day, health care reform may soon come up for a final Senate vote, with success or failure potentially hinging on whether Massachusetts supplies the 60th Democratic vote (thus stopping a Republican filibuster), or the 41st Republican vote (thus enabling Republican blockage). If Democratic candidate Martha Coakley wins on Tuesday, she could be number 60. If Brown wins, he could be number 41. The hitch for Brown, however, is that it takes a bit of time to certify the winner - and it's possible that the Senate could vote on the final health reform package during the Massachusetts certification process. If that happens, the Democrats would indeed get their 60th vote - courtesy of Democrat Paul Kirk, the interim senator who is currently warming the seat for either Coakley or Brown.
Which brings us to Brown's false claim that he's being pre-screwed. On the stump the other day, he concocted this conspiracy theory: "The (Massachusetts) secretary of state thinks he needs to wait until every single ballot is counted and recounted and triply counted, and they're not going to certify me (as the winner) until after the health care debate. Now, you know what that does, that makes me sick to my stomach." He then insisted that if he wins, the state should certify him "right away" to avoid such chicanery.
He later repeated this claim in the friendly confines of Fox News, insisting that "the machine" was "trying to manipulate the process and make sure that if I'm elected, a duly elected senator, I can't be seated in an effort to vote on this important piece of national legislation" - a scenario that makes him "almost sick to my stomach."
Dude. Go chew a Tum already. Better yet, stop being paranoid and get with the truth:
Under state law, Massachusetts election officials have to wait 10 days after an election for the arrival of military and absentee ballots. And by law they must wait another five days for the cities and towns to verify and report their results. All of which means that, at minimum, the Jan. 19 election can't be certified until Feb. 3. That's not a conspiracy, that's the law.
But by raising the specter of being pre-screwed, Brown hopes to whip up the people who are most ticked off. And anger is what often drives people to vote in typically low-turnout special elections. So spinning this bogus conspiracy is therefore smart tactical politics.
On the other hand, it's also true that, once the Massachusetts winner is certified, the paperwork is then sent to the U.S. Senate. Harry Reid is then required to swear in the winner. If Senate Democrats decree that Brown's victory paperwork shall be sent to Washington via Pony Express or pack mule, we'll concede that he does have a beef.
Comments (99)
Heard the latest, folks? Curt Schilling has come out in support of Scott Brown up in Massachusetts, and in response Ms. Coakley has decried him as a Yankees fan, apparently not knowing anything about the man. ### Gawd. Schilling came up in the BoSox farm system, played for the Orioles and the Astros before coming to the Phillies, and he DEFEATED the Yankees in the 2001 World Series while playing for the Diamondbacks. The Sox fans up in the Bay State are boiling mad at her. ### Just how totally disconnected are the National Socialist Party politicians from the citizens they're supposed to be representing down in Mordor-on-the-Potomac, anyway? -30-— Tucci78- billatk--the ideological right is against social security and medicare on principle--read their stuff if you don't believe me. It doesn't matter to them whether the programs are fiscally sound or not; they're still against them. One of their strategies to wean the public away from these programs is to sponsor propaganda the effect that social security and medicare are fiscally unsound. Again, they don't really care if this is actually true. In fact, the social security fund is in reasonably good shape, and medicare is an unfunded program so it's really irrelevant to argue where it will be in the future. Medicare will provide as much benefit to future generations as the public is willing to pay for; end of discussion.— liberal
- jimy, i reposted over on the next board. Repost yours there and we will keep up the discussion. Cheers:)— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly: i think the Obama press out in the Hinterlands has clouded your evaluative skills. I would say that Obama resembles more the Bush model than the Crazy-Arse Leftist strawman that plays out in the Echo Chamber. 1) re: Iraq/Afghan, Obama is Bush on steroids ... Obama has taken these ACTIONS to fight terrorists in the past year: continued the Iraq War Plan of Bush-Petraus, a refocus on the Afghanistan that Bush forgot about -- he's sending in 30K+ additional troops, counting contractors we will have 100K+ armed forces in-country, accelerated Predator attacks in Pakistan, increased anti-terrorist activity in Yemen. not exactly the battle of words that the Right Wing Echo Chamber parrots out there ... 2) re: the Economy ... are you aware that Obama is perpetuating the Bush Domestic Economy Initiative of 2008. in his FINAL YEAR as president, the wild reckless Bush $pending culminated with these government programs: 1) Stimulus ($600 taxpayer rebates, 2/2008) $168 Billion; 2) Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac bailout $400 Billion; 3) A.I.G. bailout $150 Billion; Financial Bailout (TARP 1) $700 Billion. Let me repeat: Bush in JUST HIS LAST YEAR IN OFFICE TALLIED $1.418 Trillion in spending. Bottomline, the Bush economic mantra was: Socialize the losses and Privatize the gains. so who is in bed with Wall St and the Banks? ... 3) re: airline bombers ... are you aware that the Dec 25th UndieBomber is being treated the same way that George W. Bush treated the ShoeBomber – yep, as a criminal in US courts? ... as you can clearly see, Obama is alot closer to your Friend-in-Chief Bush in actual practice that it truly astounds me that You & Yours are so inflamed with Obama. makes one wonder WHY The Right Wing uproar aimed at the new kid on the block who is basically the previous kid but happens to wear the Other Team's uniform and has a funny sounding al-Qaeda name, and don't get me started on the ears,,,,— jimy_max
- jimy, I don't hate Pres. Obama. Checkout my posts for the last year and find one that has any hate in it. I don't think you can. I just don't like people who are fake and neither does the american people apparently. The President had all the answers during the campaign & has none now, ran as a middle of the road dem and is governing as a far left lib, ran as a inclusive uniter and has been as partisan as you can get, ran on cutting taxes for middle class but now will raise them & said he would have CSPAN cameras during the healthcare negotiations and now hides it all behind closed doors and that is just for starters. That is why a 'tea party' repub is about to take 'Teddy Kennedy's' senate seat in Mass. The lib'dems in charge couldn't have been satisfied with incremental change and baby steps, they had to overreach and be pigs of themselves and no amount of lipstick is going to change that fact, imho:) The President's best hope for a better next 3 years is if the GOP takes control of congress and keeps the lib'dems from gorging themselves on power and taxes. Like Newt did for Clinton in 1994:) I know GWB was the same:)— NEPhilly
- NEPhil: you have a very convenient measuring stick in regards to your current object of Hate, Obama. if you used that "measuring stick" during the Bush-8 then you are on firm honest footing to measure Obama ... if that's the case, criticize away. anything less than that is just lazy, convenient, and dishonest bloviation that at the end of the day is just pixel-d1arrhea. doesn't add up to anything consequential. all that we require here is that you be fair, balanced (where have I heard that before?) and CONSISTENT. we aspire to that, and you be the judge as to how it plays out herein at Philly.com ...— jimy_max
Comment removed.- Nigel- I think you have to be carefull getting your narratives from liberal sources instead of directly from the source. This is the classic " In other words" tactic. Where person says one thing then a liberal pundit translates it into something else then the rest of the time is spent bashing someone for something they never said in the first place . In my mind it is sad that an earthqauke is turned into a political fest. The poverty in Haiti has more to do with a broken political system than anything else. I made a donation to a private charity for the earthquake victims. And I know that we are using Military resources to get them food and water but I too and very skeptical of the US just handing over 100 million dollars of borrowed money to the Haitian government.
- You know, sometimes I go on a website for a store and never give them any personal information and miraculously I get a coupon or advertisement mailed to my house several days later. Anyone else notice that?— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- still, I think you said that & it reminds me of this healthcare fiasco:) Again, why would someone who wanted to donate to the red cross go through the white house website? It is not about the money it is about the information gleaned such as addresses and names for mailing lists, etc. It is not crazy to think this highly partisan white house would give those names and addresses to the dnc or the white house politcal wing, etc. He did say it, I put it in quotes, I just don't think it is that outrageous. He encouraged people not to go through the white house website that is all. As for the why the president responded so quickly it is not glossed over (other than the humanitarian need which goes without saying), he did it to burnish his political image (the anti-katrina Bush if you will) as a compassionate & decisive leader (and if it helps his politcal image w/african americans domestically, so be it:). Is what Rush said worse, the same or better than what Harry Reid said, on the 'racism scale'?— NEPhilly
- jimy, I can always rely on you to mention how GWB failed in the same situation as Obama so I don't have to:) It is plain and simple politics (rednecks not needed) and when Harry Reid says something just as, if not more offensive, it is brushed off. The lib'dems should be a little consistent on this subject, imho.— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly : as someone said earlier, don't try to defend the indefensible. As to the whitehouse website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/haitiearthquake_embed), all it is is a clearing house. There is a link to the Red Cross, a link to the Center for International Disaster Information, a way to donate via cell phone texting, and information on how to contact the state department to find out about relatives. They aren't collecting money themselves. So Rush's paranoia, besides being unbased on reality. And yes, you make the argument that since our tax dollars are going to Haiti, you have given enough. Just because you agree with it doesn't mean that Rush didn't say it. If you can't say that making that argument isn't encouraging others not to donate, then you are being intentionally delusional. Finally, I noticed you sort of glossed over the whole "why he responded qo quickly" thing.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- NEPhilly: "...I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti." i can just imagine how you would end that little ditty when in the friendly confines of your Partisans -- just one question, are rednecks optional? moving on ,,,, i guess you forgot to mention that Bush took 6 days to respond to the ShoeBomber and using your Right Wing Numerology Logic that would add up to Bush being TWICE the Ditherer than Obama. oh my! ... and Bush probably responded in the same amount of time as Obama to the Tsunami in Southeast Asia so using your Right Wing Numerology Logic that would be a wash and Bush = Obama. it all really adds up ,,,,— jimy_max
- celtic_13 ha! C'mon the hoops!— IRNBRU
- still, why would people donate through a whitehouse website when they can give to private orgs. like the red cross or doctors without borders, etc.? Because the white house has been such a smooth running machine that instills confidence? Please. Also, if our govt. is going to give $100 Mil to Haiti with more to follow isn't Rush technically right? That our tax dollars are already on the way to Haiti as we speak (include military personnel, etc.)? Isn't that the lib'dem mantra for not donating as much as repubs domestically (such as the Obama's and Biden's)? That the govt. should do it. You should love that:)— NEPhilly
- Bill atk, I suppose you are one of those people who makes himself feel better by belittling others. Here's a link to a blog that also contains the clip from the Limbaugh program. Please don't bother responding to my posts again, as I have no desire to interact with rude, boorish people, and therefore won't engage with you. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=55312— NigeltheMastiff
- NEPhilly: so he's saying that Obama responded to this crises rapidly solely to help himself politically. It could have nothing to do with the fact that the more help that gets there quickly the fewer lives are lost. I just wonder why former presidents Clinton and GW Bush and the Republicans in both houses of Congress are going along with this obvious scam.— still_independent
- NEPhilly: you left out the part we he said he wouldn't trust that money donated to charities through the white house website would actually get to disaster victims in Haiti. And you left out the part about the income taxes.— still_independent
- and the rest, sorry:) "Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti."— NEPhilly
- Here is the quote in its original form & he is commenting on the domestic politics of this disaster in Haiti (and if you read it, it makes sense), just like Harry Reid was doing when he called Obama 'light-skinned' etc... "Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, 'credibility' with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made-to-order for them. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there."— NEPhilly
- swedesboromike: and since you can decide that Michael Moore is the leader and spokesman for the left, I can decide that Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson are the leaders and spokesmen for the right.— still_independent
- bill atk. : these are Rush's actual words. "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax." He also claimed that Obama's rapid response was not due to the fact that timely aid is critical in a disaster, but was done to "boost his credibility with the black community." And just so there's no claims of "out of context", here are the full comments .... "This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, 'credibility' with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made-to-order for them. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there. " "Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti." ..... Feel free to spin away.— still_independent
- tom, wilm: you very cavalierly report from your CNN sources "..December was the first month since the beginning of the Iraq war in which there were no U.S. combat deaths, the U.S. military reported. There were three noncombat fatalities." So the "war" that was lost, the surge that accomplished nothing, the country where a military success was impossible, had ZERO combat deaths in December, 2009. Huh!" ... I take it that you are now claiming the victory that your Friend-in-Chief Bush so theatrically and prematurely declared aboard the USS Abe Lincoln on May 2003. Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. btw, Bush declared Victory a scant three months into the Iraq War (i guess Bushies were working overtime on the slam dunk mojo). so what have we gained so far in the 7 years of the Iraq War? (btw, it is not over by a long shot. be aware, the exit will be a mini-war in itself.) ... whatever the Gains to US, it needs to measured against the costs .... e.g., Iraq War spending: $800+ billion, Casualties: 4400 US, too-many Iraqi civilians, Wounded: 32K US, way-too-many Iraqi civilians? al-Qaeda recruitment: thru the roof, al-Qaeda is selling franchises as fast as they can approve the paperwork -- suicide academies are springing up all over the map, they are firmly entrenched on the cyber beachfront -- Facebook, Twitter, MyJihad.com. if you are claiming victory, then we need to redefine "not winning". what is this, up is down and down is now up.— jimy_max
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- It never occurred to me that anyone would defend Limbaugh for these cruel comments. It certainly says something. As for some back-up, here's a link that reports on it. I also read it in the Philly Daily News. Others are also reporting on it. Mike, are you suggesting that because the Haitian government is corrupt that we should just let the citizens of Haiti fend for themselves? If so, I guess that says it all. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977995818&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace— NigeltheMastiff
- Tom--The Cato Institute, a conservative republican think tank that is an extremely influential force in republican ideology, has worked out strategies for eliminating social security and medicare. Take a look at their website. These were the basis for Bush's social security proposals in 2005. Eliminating these very popular federal programs is still a goal of the ideological right. The rationale is that these programs gird up the democratic party, and if eliminated the democrats would shrink and go away. i'm not making this up--it's in writing in countless articles on the Cato site as well as in the national review and other sources. As for Bush v Gore, the Supreme court ignored settled election law that gives the states authority in election contests. This is a dangerous precedent--the founders would have had a fit at this opening to coups and Caesarism.— liberal
- Comment removed.
- In other news:) ***The White House on Thursday cut a deal with its closest labor allies to blunt the impact of a new tax on high-cost insurance policies — and blunt their protests against the health reform plan. Democrats couldn’t eliminate the tax on union members’ high-cost insurance policies altogether but did put off the effective date until 2018, but only for labor agreements and state and local government workers. And that seems sure to open up Democrats to charges that it took yet another behind-closed-doors bargaining session with a powerful interest group to close the deal on health reform.*** Read more: //www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31527.html#ixzz0cgpzuwuO— NEPhilly
- nigel, Rush's point was that the govt. of Haiti is so corrupt (sound familiar:) that any aid goes right to the higher ups in Haiti's govt. and not to the people. Are you listening for another point of view? Good for you:)— NEPhilly
- Did any of you happen to hear the loathsome Rush Limbaugh tell listeners not to contribute to aid Haiti? What a completely odious man. Anyone who can look at those images and not feel compassion has something deeply wrong with him/her. BTW, the American Friends Service Committee is also taking contributions, and they are well known for doing a tremendous amount of good. You can contribute online. The link is http://www.afsc.org/.— NigeltheMastiff
- Comment removed.
- NPR is planning on switching over to 72 hours of somber music at midnight on Tuesday.— tr88
- Comment removed.
- Very little in politics inspires me. I am very jaded by all of it. But once a while someone comes along who seems to get " it "......."Brown: “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedys seat, it’s not the Democrats seat, it’s the people’s seat.”.................. That single line says more about the sense of entitlement of the liberal establishment and the government elite than any 1000 word op-ed could ever say. It is about da**mn time that power was restored to the citizens of this country.
- He can win Mike. They are putting safety nets on the high floors at the Inquirer Building as we speak.— tr88
- Monday, March 9, 2009 Arlen Specter's route to survival Here’s a vastly expanded version of my (somewhat tongue in cheek) Sunday print column: I’m talking to you, Arlen Specter. You might want to do yourself a favor by switching teams and joining the Democrats.— tr88
- Tr88- thanks for posting that link ...".BOSTON -- Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown has surged ahead of his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, according to a new poll released Thursday night. Brown leads Coakley by a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent, the Suffolk University/WHDH-TV poll found. It is the first poll to show Brown, who had been thought a long-shot underdog, leading the race.".......... I still don't think Brown can possibly win as the Democratic operatives will do anything to make sure Coakley " wins " but I am very surpised Brown is surging ahead in Mass. Healthcare is the holy grail of liberal nonsense so I am sure it will get passed before Brown is seated.
- Yes I am the " conse pub " who believes Social Security should be fazed out. I am actually a libertarian but Tal likes to call me a" conse pub "so we'll stick with that label for now . Putting aside the fact that Social Security has unfunded obligations in the trillions the worst part about Social Security is that it hinders the very financial security it is intended to provide. First of all a giant government bureacracy is in place to manage the program. All staffed with six figure salaried employees with cadillac healthcare plans and life long pensions thus further detracting from the money that is intended to provide social security. Secondly the program inflates the cost of an employee for the employer because the employer has to contribute on behalf of the employee. This is reflected in lower direct wages for the employee and less hiring due to the high cost of an employee. And lastly the power needs to be restored to the people. Stop confiscating their hard earned money and they will be able to provide better for their own financial security. Liberals take very easy positions. They look at a problem and throw money at it without ever investigating the unitended consequences of their good intentions. Social Security is the poster child for the nonsese of liberal policy.
- still, the union exemption will be in there, so wlecome aboard:) lib, the 2000 election was only stolen in the minds of the far left and by no other authority or legal ruling. That is why the hard left hated GWB right from the get go and only gave him a break after 9/11 and its aftermath and of course the economy grew jobs after his tax cuts. Who could deny there is a 'supreme being' that has a sense of humor/irony if Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's old seat in bluest of blue Mass. running as wait for it 'a tea party' republican no less. I might just donate some money to him this morning:) A lot of it is Martha Coakley is a terrible candidate with a terrible record of prosecutions and a terrible sense of entitlement and even the people of Mass. are sick of it, imho.— NEPhilly
- It's one thing to be a pawn of the DNC, it's quite another to be an "expert", lauded by other "experts". Where else could you have learned that the Republican Party was dead 10 months ago? Thanks for that big time professional insight. If your only job in the real world was to inform the public you would be looking for work. In "Journalism" and Academia you might get a raise and a couple awards just for trying hard for the home team.— tr88
- Duly noted Tucci78. I apologize to real liberals who dont believe small groups of propagandists should try to steal elections against the will of the people. They should name Dick's spot at Penn the Josef Goebbels Chair .— tr88
- @tr88 - When describing not-so-covert fascists like Mr. Polman, I suggest that the proper use of the word "Liberal" be such that it is subject to quotation marks at the very least. ### The word "liberal" was first used in the 19th Century to describe a political philosophy which set primary value upon the rights of the individual human being - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - to defend those rights against government infringements. ### Mr. Polman, like all modern "Liberal" types, is diametrically and implacably opposed to such a position, and he is in fact what in the 19th Century were first called "socialists." ### Because "socialism" is a rankly horrible (and murderous) doctrine, people like Mr. Polman don't want to be called what they are, and they use words like "Liberal" to weasel away from identification as the enemies of human rights they really are. ### Don't let them. -30-— Tucci78
- Pay off the unions, pay off selected Senators, pay off the parasites who only take from the system, pay off the Community Organizers. And journalists do it for nothing?— tr88
- Dick when your teaching your young idealistic students of journalism do you tell them directly how it's their duty to try to steal elections for democrats?— tr88
- With all due respect, it isn't the Kennedy Seat, it isn't the Democrats Seat, it's the People's Seat. Wow.— tr88
- Why are liberal "journalists" answering their call to duty as bought and paid for DNC operatives? Brown surges to the lead over Coakley. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/mostpopular/22242335/detail.html— tr88
- Does getting smeared by the press count as pre-screwing?— tr88
- Yes, the economy has turned the corner..."WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retail sales fell in December as demand for autos, clothing and appliances all slipped, a disappointing finish to a year in which sales had the largest drop on record. The weakness in consumer demand highlighted the formidable hurdles facing the economy as it struggles to recover from the deepest recession in seven decades. The Commerce Department said Thursday that retail sales declined 0.3 percent in December compared with November, much weaker than the 0.5 percent rise that economists had been expecting. Excluding autos, sales dropped by 0.2 percent, also weaker than the 0.3 percent rise analyst had forecast. For the year, sales fell 6.2 percent, the biggest decline on records that go back to 1992. The only other year that annual sales fell was in 2008, when they slipped by 0.5 percent." Retail sales fell in DECEMBER, the holiday season. Meanwhile, "In the jobs report, the Labor Department said new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 444,000. Wall Street economists polled by Thomson Reuters expected an increase of only 3,000. The rise was partly a result of large seasonal layoffs in the retail, manufacturing and construction industries, a Labor Department analyst said. The second week of January usually sees the largest increase in claims, unadjusted for seasonal trends, during the year, the analyst said." Odd, they didn't mention seasonal hiring when good jobless claim numbers were reported for November and December.— tom - wilmington, de
- Tal, name one Conse Pub who is espousing the ideas of getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. Name and source would be fine, other wise just STHU. FYI - swedesboro mike does not count since he does not hold elected office or a position of influence.— tom - wilmington, de
- A Massachusetts Republican is an oxymoron. Just because they have an "R" after their name doesn't make them any less dangerous than Democrats. Case in point: Obama vs. McCain - vote for either and you get the other.— Mark Glaeser
- FARMER TOM: You are a cherry-picker supreme, which is not only my opinion. BTW, the main decision publicized was the 5-4 IMHO, and you made it appear as 7-2. That's what I meant by the truth. I was merely pointing out what Conse 'Pubs feel about SS, Medicare, etc., and many Conse 'Pubs have espoused that. Not unemployment in particular, but government programs. Again, you point out UC as if all were false. You did a nice savaging job though.— Talvenada
- I wonder if this would make Polman sick to his stomach..from Politico.."A Suffolk University poll released Thursday evening shows Republican Scott Brown four points ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley as he continues his improbable surge in the Massachusetts Senate special election. The poll reports Brown is leading Coakley, 50 to 46 percent, just within the margin of error. Independent candidate Joe Kennedy received 3 percent. Suffolk pollster David Paleologos told the Boston Herald even he was surprised by the poll’s results, noting that their models show a likely high turnout of independent voters next Tuesday, which is likely to benefit Brown. The results also showed Brown leading in all the state’s regions except Suffolk County." The link is http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31534.html#ixzz0ceoykDYX— tom - wilmington, de
- From CNN (this was all over the media, don't know how anyone missed it).."Baghdad, Iraq (CNN) -- December was the first month since the beginning of the Iraq war in which there were no U.S. combat deaths, the U.S. military reported. There were three noncombat fatalities." So the "war" that was lost, the surge that accomplished nothing, the country where a military success was impossible, had ZERO combat deaths in December, 2009. Huh!— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, this, imho, further presses the case that Obama has no courage of his convictions. The tax on cadillac plans was long thought to be the best way to curb healthcare costs, since many would simply cut benefits rather than pay the tax. It was supposedly an extremely high priority for Obama to have this tax included in the final bill, despite how he trashed McCain in 2008 for wanting to tax health benefits. It is becoming clearer and clearer to the American people that Obama and the Democrats do not care what is in this bill, they just want to pass something so they can claim a victory. I've heard they want this thinking after it passes the public attitude towards it and them will turn around and become more positive. I believe it is a gross miscalculation.— tom - wilmington, de
- still_independent, I also have no idea what the rules are for House and Senate seating/swearing in of new members. I just read the articles surrounding the issue from several media sources. As for the union exemption from the excise tax (it also applies to state and government workers), it has been delayed until 2018. So glad Obama and the Democrats in Congress are finally standing up to all those special interest groups like they said they would during the campaign. And don't you just love the transparency as promised?— tom - wilmington, de
- Just to clear up the truth and some facts for Talvenada because as he says "Anyone can win a debate with the truth, but Tom doesn't need the truth." First, the Supreme Court decision to toss out the way the Florida recount was being decided was 7-2. Anyone can look up the decision "Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Board" and "Bush v Gore" to see the decision and its reasoning. The 5-4 decision came in the vote on determining if a valid recount could be done before the Florida "safe harbor" window had closed. Just a little fact for Tal. As for Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment stealing from "Conse Pub" grandchildren, since both Medicare and Social Security will probably not be around for my grandchildren (none of whom have been born yet) to collect. But Tal doesn't need facts to make nonsensical statements like that (nobody has ever proposed getting rid of unemployment compensation on this site that I have read). All Tal needs is to say something is not true, ignore request for links to his statements, and blast anything Conse Pub like. Tal just cannot get over the fact that his guy is an empty suit who so far has broken every campaign promise he made, is more arrogant than even Narcissus, and has no clue what he is doing. Better he should write his baseball articles and praise the behind the plate prowess of "Choochie" Ruiz.— tom - wilmington, de
- BILL ATK: That's sounds like something I've heard on FOX or a year now, which means it must be true. Do you know that since 1/21/09 MOST people think like you? Where were they on election day, listening to El Rushbo?— Talvenada
- MOCKvenada: You've outdone yourself. Nice style in taking my post turning it into gibberish to say that's what people with a different POV need to be discredited by mockery. But don't mock a Conse 'Pub or they might be insulted when they say Obama is deliberately ruining the country.— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
- a 2-7 vote vs a conse pub smear tactic on the mod lib Boston harbor. I say a Norway Pine and Ernest Borgine, Russ Feingold=- Sarah Paline. AAaaaaaaaaaaaarge, conse pub lib dem 67 days until I'll be writing baseball articles.— Alvenada
- Any Conse 'Pub will tell you the best debate to win is when you defeat the truth. It's so satisfying to bask in the glow of your own brilliance.— Talvenada
- STILL & LIB: Telling Tom you don't know is all he needs to make his facts so one-sided, because that's how Conse 'Pubs roll: honesty is a weakness and can be exploited. ................. 7-2 vote in The SC with Libs for Bush sounds manipulated to me. Anyone can win a debate with the truth, but Tom doesn't need the truth.— Talvenada
- tom: I have no idea what the laws are, but in your post you said "This same MA Sec of State now says US Senate rules preclude him from doing the same thing in this instance". Perhaps it's not twisting of rules, but the fact that House rules and Senate rules are different? Just asking, I have no idea. ... As for the tax exemption for unions - IF the final negotiated bill contains an exemption for the excise tax for unions, then count me as being against it.— still_independent
- This Conse 'Pub has to win in Mass. to stop health care; because we won't be able to get rid of it, like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Compensation, and all the other programs that steal from the grandchildren of Conse 'Pubs: the only ones who work and pay taxes in their country.— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
Could Martha Croakey be any more politically tone deaf? "why shoud I campaign among the voters of Massachusettes, when I can just meet with the cogs of the Dem machine, and be given that to which I am entitled?" Another Dem all star ignoring the wishes of the governed. Who would have imagined the arrogance and corruption to have metasticized so completely through the Dem party so quickly?— Mr. Smith- SPIN BORO MIKE: Smear is what you have vowed to do by posting anything negative about Obama for 4 years/365 days. You've kept your promise so far, and even bragged about it. 1460 days of negative posts is smearing to anyone but you, bragging aside.— Talvenada
- Unions exempted from the 'Cadillac tax' until 2017. The empty suit in the WH knows who runs the Dems.— Joe Funk
- swedes - you are one dishonest hack, a true credit to your political heritage. you have been exposed. smile, you're on not-so candid camera.— jimy_max
- Comment removed.
- How nice that labor unions got their health plans exempted from the excise tax through 2017 (while other non-union plans are taxed immediately). They did, however, get the threshold for family raised from $23,000 to $24,000, so I guess all you non-union workers subject to the tax do owe them something. Isn't it also lovely that the president is taxing banks for their Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, but is exempting the auto companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fifty banks are being taxed, including some who did not even take any TARP money, and some that are foreign owned. I am sure that will give banks a reason to start lending money and stimulate the economy, huh?— tom - wilmington, de
- Just for the record, and not to start an elaborate discussion, the US Supremes voted by 7-2 (with both Breyer and Souter joining in the decision) that the recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.— tom - wilmington, de
- liberal, if you do not know the facts of the 2000 election, then how can you pass judgement on the decision of the supremes, which was based on the facts of the 2000 election?— tom - wilmington, de
- Two things omitted by Polman. First, true that Scott Brown offered the amendment on a religious exemption for the emergency contraception bill. However, he voted in favor of the bill without his amendment attached. Why did Polman omit this fact? Second, in 2007 this same MA Sec of State sidestepped this law to allow a Democrat winner of a House special election to be seated PRIOR to all absentee votes being counted, supposedly so the member could cast a crucial vote on an override of a Bush veto. This same MA Sec of State now says US Senate rules preclude him from doing the same thing in this instance. Funny how the rules can be twisted yet nobody can complain, else they be considered conspiracy buffs.— tom - wilmington, de
- Jim- You said " the Right has smeared Obama from the get-go "...... If by smear you mean pointing out the unemployment and the deficit has grown under Obama, then yes. guilty as charged. Perhaps you are talking about Harry Reid's remarks. I don't know. But judging by Obama's sinking poll numbers I would say it has more to do with job performance than anything else. Maybe proclaiming that healthcare would be debated on C-span has something to do with it?
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- swedes: not sure your position on smear machines "... by the time the leftists smear machine is done with Brown the ill-informed( about 90% of the voters) will have him pegged as the 2nd coming of Ghengis Kahn." i get the definite feeling that you don't like it when the smears are pointed to your guy. really, who would like that? as you know, the Right has smeared Obama from the get-go ... take your pick: Obama as a secret muslim, who is not a real American but in fact a foreigner (probably African) with the funny al-qaeda name, and is a certified card carrying socialist / fascist / marxist / racist / Commie / Nazi. so are you equal opportunity on smear machines?— jimy_max
- Liberal- Two News consortiums bought the results of the 2000 election. USA Today and CNN were a part of the consortium. Both found that under the standards that were applied in the recount, Bush won. It was just a close election. Under your line of thinking Hillary would have won the nomination for President if just the popular vote was counted. In texas for example Hillary won by over 100,000 votes yet Obama got one more delgate than Hillary. Those are the rules of the elections. No sense in whining about it.
- swede--i dont know what the facts of the Florida 2000 election were; I base my views on the Bush supreme court's opinion. It damns itself as a matter of law. I have no conspiracy theories on this. You are projecting your type of thinking on someone else.— liberal
- Liberal- so you're one of those " hanging chaders" huh. I would put you in the same crowd as the crazys who think 9-11 was an inside job.
- Comment removed.
- The due process of law makes a right winger sick to their stomach? Shocking!— phillygoat
- After the 2000 presidential election, I would think the republicans would be chary of accusing others of playing loose with election laws. But they have no shame.— liberal
- The real Scott Brown (pronounced Broon)plays for Celtic FC. He is most definitely a Republican, but more of the "One Ireland" sort. Hail Hail!— celtic_13
- Polman says.................." On the other hand, it's also true that, once the Massachusetts winner is certified, the paperwork is then sent to the U.S. Senate. Harry Reid is then required to swear in the winner. If Senate Democrats decree that Brown's victory paperwork shall be sent to Washington via Pony Express or pack mule, we'll concede that he does have a beef."......................
- Comment removed.
- anony, I agree it is slimy (not unconstitutional). I also believe Scott Brown has a legitimate concern after the antics played with this senate seat. It is not unreasonable, imho.— NEPhilly
- When Kenndy won this seat in a special election in 1962 he was seated the next day. That is in the USA Today a few days ago. Massachusets changes the election laws at the whims of the liberals running the show up there so maybe the rules have changed quite bit since Kennedy won the seat in a special election. Bottom line is by the time the leftists smear machine is done with Brown the ill-informed( about 90% of the voters) will have him pegged as the 2nd coming of Ghengis Kahn.
- Hard to believe Harry that Scott Brown is running as a true tea party conservative in the bluest of blue states and has the lib'dems in scurry mode. Fun to watch:) Mr. Polman states with horror that he 'is new school all the way, hewing to the national Republican orthodoxy', but really what's old is new again as he seems to be an old school conservative to me:) ***He's a favorite of the anti-abortion activists. He has come out in favor of water-boarding. He questions whether humans have caused global warming. As a state senator in Boston, he once championed - unsuccessfully - a legislative amendment that would have allowed religiously-devout medical personnel to deny emergency contraception to rape victims. He opposes civilian trials for terrorists***— NEPhilly
- NE Philly, there is a simple answer to your question. The Constitution requires that all election laws be in place prior to starting an election. They can't be changed after Election Day. That was part of the Supreme Court's rationale for killing the Florida recount in Bush vs. Gore. Changing the law to allow for a caretaker prior to an election may have been slimy, but it wasn't unconstitutional.— anonymous
- I wonder if he'll stick to that line if he finds himself behind Coakley by 100 votes pending the return of military ballots....— anonymous
- Mr. Polman, Mass. has already changed the rules for this election once, so why not again? The Mass. legislators changed state law in 2004 (when they thought Kerry might win presidency) to keep Mitt Romney from appointing Kerry's successor & holdng a special election. Then w/Sen. Kennedy is dying and a dem in the govenors mansion, they change the law back. Now if wins, running as the 41st vote in a blue state & a true conservative, dems are talking about other parlimentary tricks to get their unpopular healthcare bill passed before he is seated. Scott Brown is right, it does make you sick to you stomach:(— NEPhilly
You spend the whole column saying Brown is being paranoid, then at the end you lay out the scenario where he can be pre-screwed, therefore validating his concern. Do you really think Harry Reid is going to personally swear in the vote that will kill his healthcare bill?— jmc- You can tell when Dick is getting worried. He goes on a smearfest.— Comrade Noodlehead
- Of course Dickie does not mention that Coakley's aide assaulted a reporter for the Weekly Standard when Coakley would not answer a question on her absurd comment there are no terrorists in Afpak.— CD75
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: