Once upon a time… Martha Coakley said she would not have voted for the House health care bill with Stupak in it.
If the Democratic leadership had followed the lead of many liberals and progressives in the party we wouldn’t be in this mess in Massachusetts. Democratic arrogance in not listening has compounded the problem. It’s especially infuriating when the people pushing back on the Democratic health care bill as it currently stands represent the majority of this country.
“…I believe that I would not. … I think that particular amendment that was put in really is a poison pill for this bill. It’s taking two steps back… Health care reform was to provide more care for people. A health care reform bill that takes steps backward on women’s constitutional right to choose is a mistake. I do not believe that we have to take a step backward on women’s rights. – candidate Martha Coakley, November 9, 2009
If the outcome is like the foreshadowing, critical mass against Democrats has been reached in Massachusetts. What came before in Virginia, New Jersey, but also NY-23, will have finally exploded in the Coakley-Brown race. But even if Coakley pulls this out, which is a long shot right now with Coakley seeing herself as the underdog at this stage, something that is truly astounding in blue Mass. Democrats better understand the collective rage against the Democratic leadership, which is floundering badly. Rape flier ads just reveal the desperation, as do racist and sexist squeals during a campaign flame out, with the whole thing sparking an MSBNC pundit battle.
Barack Obama has also failed when it comes to an effective message Democrats can run on, whether we’re talking about health care, economy or jobs, not understanding that Democratic candidates can’t simply run on being part of Obama’s orbit, which so far is leading Dems into a 2010 ditch.
Candidates also need to follow their own instincts, as Coakley’s candidacy proves. Not what the party, a famous family or what the widow of the past Kennedy patriarch wants. It’s tough stuff, but I found Vicki Kennedy’s presence in this race horribly out of place and even in bad taste; that it was ineffective makes it worse. Though who can blame Mrs. Kennedy for trying? But besides Martha Coakley deciding to “go dark” after she won the primary, with a campaign operation less than stellar, the elite Democratic establishment is part of this loss, too.
As for instincts, Coakley had the right ones a few months ago.
Where was the Martha Coakley who said what’s above about the health care bill once she won the primary and began running against Scott Brown, but also as another term for Teddy? The quote above was on the Boston Globe website under the heading: Coakley decries health care bill. This is the Martha Coakley I met when I interviewed her before she won the primary.
In fact, where was the Martha Coakley who said this about the Hyde amendment on “Hardball”?
MATTHEWS: If the subsidies include (INAUDIBLE) even though the Hyde Amendment says the federal government cannot spend a dollar on abortion. How do you square that?
COAKLEY: Well, Chris, look, this is the first day I‘ve announced this. This health care bill has so many pieces that are critical and complicated.
MATTHEWS: Right.
COAKLEY: On that particular issue, that‘s where I am. I know there are going to be a lot of ways that those pieces will fit together. But I can‘t really answer you right now how we square that with the Hyde amendment, but…
MATTHEWS: Well, just a general principle—as a general principle, Madam Attorney General, do you think the federal government should be, as part of the health care reform, subsidizing abortion? Yes or no.
COAKLEY: Yes. And I think—yes.
MATTHEWS: OK.
COAKLEY: The short answer is yes, and I think they will have to change other laws to make them consistent. I‘ve always felt that way.
There is no way a hail Mary, fly in, here’s the star visit from Pres. Barack Obama was going to turn around this race. What’s alarming is if the White House or anyone else actually thought it would. More likely Obama found himself in a position that if he hadn’t he would have been pilloried, so it was an opportunity to take his new talking points out for a spin. They need work. Action on tangibles that voters can feel would be better.
And maybe Martha Coakley was doomed to lose anyway. But if she’d run on her own terms, sticking to her own beliefs, ignoring the ploys of the aggrieved Vicki Kennedy and the Democratic leadership who wanted to drape her in Ted Kennedy’s political shroud, because Coakley was not anything like Teddy, even if she’d lost she’d have done it her way.
Other than that, here’s the view from the Massachusetts right. It says the rest.
Or who knows, maybe she’ll actually win, a long shot now. It won’t change the analysis above.
I could not agree more with your article. I wish Martha Coakley from the primaries had shown up during the general elections. Switching her position on healthcare to follow the party line has hurt her a lot with some women and independents.
Excellent piece. I couldn’t agree more that the Democratic establishment is out of touch with the people. I happen to think that the god-awful bills in congress now are way, way too far towards socialism. And I believe Obama should have taken a less ambitious bill over the summer, a bill many Republicans could support (say, complete tax deduction for healthcare spending and a ban on blocking coverage of those with pre-existing conditions) and he could have claimed victory and focused on jobs over the fall. A smart politician steals the thunder from his opponents; Obama listened to those who insisted that we HAD to have a European-style healthcare plan NOW — but clearly that’s not what America wants. Americans want jobs and fiscal sanity, neither of which Obama is delivering.
Blue Pupppy
Do you simply refuse to acknowledge facts? Why do you consistently spout nonsense like the bill is far too socialistic? Do you even know what socialism is? What the bill looks like is that it was written by insurance lobbyists for the benefit of insurance companies – certainly not for the people.
You choose to be ignorant – and that is the problem with this country today.
Correction – not to give you too much credit for the problems in this country – the problem is choosing to ignore facts that do not support the preferred line of “reasoning” is a big problem.
Blue Puppy:
I have been quietly listening to this, as djjl has been perfectly reflecting my thoughts and questions. I too anxiously await your explanation.
The word “socialism” has been bandied about a lot of late. What exactly does it mean to you? And which bills are taking us towards socialism? Details please?
I’m hearing turnout is EPIC.
Good morning Ramsgate
Please take up from where I’m leaving off. I’ll bbl; but first must go visit my for fee physician and pick up my prescriptions that I could buy for less were I to buy it from Canada which is allowed to by the pharmaceutical, produced by a US company in the US, at a lower price than American citizens can purchase it. – Go figure some really strange “socialism.” The brand of “socialism” bluePuppy recognizes only benefits big business.
It’s not the “socialism”; it’s the “totalitarianism” of our Democratic leadership and their sycophants that bother me, their authoritarian attitudes toward ordinary Americans. I think David Brooks is right this time:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/19/let-them-eat-cake/
I mean, look, we’ve got Keith Olbermann going on a shockingly ugly rant about Scott Brown Monday in his “special comment,” and there’s Ed Schultz advocating electoral fraud –”cheat”; then there’s David Shuster, shrieking “Have Massachusetts voters lost their minds?!”
They expose a shocking authoritarian attitude.
I used to watch these people every day and find them credible. But, I’ve changed. I don’t like being bullied. These people are bullies from the word go. They behave as if they think the rest of the country are ignorant rubes because they don’t like what’s happening. They’re astonished, frustrated, in fact, they’re outraged that people aren’t just falling into line–the PARTY line. Their authoritarian tone and language gives credence to Brooks’ [and others'] points. And, those points are resonating with people across the country. Being told you’re crazy because you don’t support Obama’s policies is certainly not a strategy to win friends and influence people.
“Present”.
Olbermann has been an embarrassment for a long time and I agree that he is not only a bully but a sexist bully.Poor Ed Schultz he is just so disappointed. I completly agree that making fun of the opposition in the way that Maddow and Olbermann do is harmful to liberal causes. Bob Somerby has been taking them on for a couple of years now.
Sometimes the people in this country aren’t as stupid as they sound. (With the exception of those people who believe that Obama and his policies are socialist.) In a brand new poll people were asked “Do you think that Sarah Palin should run for president? 71% said No, 21% said Yes (these are the racist t-baggers who don’t know what socialists are because they listen to Beck, Hannity and Limberger) and 8% said they weren’t sure. Peace
I so agree with Taylor that if Coakley had remained true to her own instincts she would at least lose with integrity if indeed she loses. A big turnout is a good sign,I think.
As for Vickie Kennedy don’t you think that she is still very much grieving and feels like she has to do something for Teddy? I was disappointed in her when I saw her tell Michelle during the President’s speech to congress that he was brillant and seem to be going along with this monstrosity bill. I guess establishmnet power is stronger than true convictions. Must be hard for her to see her husband’s pick turn out to be such a disappointment.
“Democrats better understand the collective rage against the Democratic leadership”
It’s not just the leadership. That’s what’s REALLY enraging. Not a single Democratic senator has said what needs saying, and hardly any representatives. But the leadership is certifiably insane, true. The coming slaughter will be a thing to behold…
Anthony Weiner was on MJ and he always says things I want to hear. For an example he thinks there is no way Obama can cram the Senate bill down the throats of the House.
I used to read Digby first thing every morning. Now I read Taylor Marsh instead. Excellent analysis, Taylor.
I am absolutely dumbfounded. Either Obama, Rahm, Reid are as incompetent as Bush or their true allegiances are showing through. This is equal to George taking the surplus he inherited and creating a massive deficit he did.
If only more democrats were as true to their convictions as Alan Grayson the public would be giving Obama carte blanche to anything he wanted to do.
This is OT but it is such a great story. Did you all hear about the sisters in Haiti who were running an orphanage? They are just two young women. Anyway, they got in touch with family in PA,who got in touch with Rendell and some how they got the clearances for him to go down there and fly them all out! They are in Pittsburg now with the babies.
One of them said that the State Department had called and told them they had paved the way for us to bring more orphans to the US. That would be great! Get those kids with no one to care for them out of there and let them have a chance here.I’m sure many Americans would love to adopt them or at the very least they would be safe until family could be located.
I don’t know about Alan Grayson?
Poor Digby. I still read her but it took me a while to go back. She got caught up with the Blogger Boyz and with trying to please the rabid Obots who populated her comment section.
“Noogan says:
19 January 2010 at 11:15 am
It’s not the “socialism”; it’s the “totalitarianism” of our Democratic leadership and their sycophants that bother me, their authoritarian attitudes toward ordinary Americans. I think David Brooks is right this time:”
Oh please, go somewhere and fu*k yourself in your own teabagger/repugnantklan ass huh?
Taylor Marsh says:
19 January 2010 at 10:57 am
I’m hearing turnout is EPIC.
Let’s hope so.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/18/brown_supporters_trying_to_suppress_vote_by_bullying/
things are ugly.
Taylor:
This hits the nail on the head. Thanks again for an excellent piece.
“not understanding that Democratic candidates can’t simply run on being part of Obama’s orbit, which so far is leading Dems into a 2010 ditch.
Candidates also need to follow their own instincts, as Coakley’s candidacy proves.”
I’m not going to get into a semantic battle over what is socialism and what is not socialism.
But instead I think it’s relevant that Democracy Corps poll shows that fully 2/3 of Americans oppose this bill because they believe it’s too much government intrusion in their lives.
Indeed, it’s ironic that Obama attacked Hillary for having mandates in her plan and Obamacare’s weakness is the requirement of everyone to purchase health care, subject to penalty.
As I continually say, Obama presented himself as one thing to the broad middle of the electorate and signaled to his left wing that he was something else. The middle feels betrayed, the left feels betrayed, and the Republicans are reaping the benefit.
Noogan makes an excellent point, one which I have stated in the past (which makes it an excellent point!) as: One problem with liberals is that they are often illiberal.
That goes for the “totalitarianism of our Democratic leadership”, the “authoritarian attitude” of some pundits, and can even be applied to bloggers. I have left several sites because the bloggers haven’t been able to accept any views other than their own without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
This also applies to the “experts” in any field. There are people on this blog, or any blog, whose views are just as important as any in print. If you scroll up you will see the ones I mean, besides others. That’s the basis of democracy.
If we’re going to find our way through the current messes we eventually have to work with others, some of whom don’t completely agree with us. IT’S OKAY. Let’s be true liberals with open minds, and set an example for the clowns in the news.
Funny, I never heard Kerry asking Obama to reign in his obnoxious, sexist supporters?
“BluePuppy says:
19 January 2010 at 1:22 pm
I’m not going to get into a semantic battle over what is socialism and what is not socialism. ”
Because he/she/it hasn’t the faintest idea what socialism IS. He/She/It just likes throwing around repugnantklan and teabagger talking points as given out. How pathetic is DAT!
DB, being a true “liberal” does NOT mean you listen to any shithouseratcrazy ranting from folks who have demonstrated they haven’t got anything worth listening to to say. You listen till you see where they’re coming from aka “Obama and his EXTREME Socialism”
and you safely shunt them off into the moron room and close the door. Frankley at this point in hostory there is NOTHING any repugnantklaner or teabagger has to say I give to fu*ks at a rolling doughnut about.
“I’m not going to get into a semantic battle over what is socialism and what is not socialism.”
Of course not. It would mean having to explain why you’re screaming “Socialism!”
What can be said when people refer to Obama’s meager “effort” to reign in the continued rape of this country by the health care industrial complex as socialist?
No clue djjl
Not much can be said..
Secular, I even include you in my roster of those who should be listened to.
Maybe Taylor should post a dictionary so folks could easily see what the meaning of some of the words being bandied about really are – like totalitarian and socialism for a start.
LAke Lady
No, he never uttered a word. Maybe he doesn’t have cable either.
But then neither did Obama – who should have been acutely aware of civil rights discrimination based on thinks like color, gender, etc
Blue Puppy
Your problem with the meaning of socialism has nothing to do with semantics.
“Don Bacon says:
19 January 2010 at 1:43 pm
Secular, I even include you in my roster of those who should be listened to.”
Awww shucks…ya meanz it?!!!!
I’m all blushin an stuff!
By the by, several sources are reporting heavy turn out early.
Heya all. Appreciate the kind words, BC30, Blue27, BluePuppy, alinosof and others, including all the lurkers I’m hearing from daily. I’m hoping the dozens of new people registering around here will eventually come on in.
Maybe the disagreements will inspire serious challenges around here instead of comfy name calling, because *everyone* is welcome. Debate is hard to have when everyone agrees. It’s also boring.
If we can all keep it on issues, even with using snark and rhetorical slaps, respecting what others believe regardless of our disagreements, the discussions will be a lot more interesting going forward.
djjl says:
19 January 2010 at 1:41 pm
It’s the right-wing theme that reinforces political warfare: truth has nothing to do with it; if the perception sticks, use it, aka Sarah Palin’s “death panels, which was an outright lie, but it fit into people’s hysterical fears, something the right knows how to do very well.
The point is, i think, that don’t care about the TRUTH when they’ve got same tale to carry their lies aboard.
As my husband and I visited our friend in Pa on our emergency Christmas week trip – we saw the Insurance Company death panels in place and at work. Real ones – not Sarah’s fantasy political work – the same one’s who’ve been saying who got care and who didn’t for years – the insurance company’s. Just think – your employer, because they typically pick your insurance company, also has a say in how you and your family will be cared for in good and poor health. How’s that make ya’ feel. That CEO needs to watch that line when it comes to bonus time.
I don’t think we’ve had the best leadership, but I don’t think it’s been that bad. I put a lot of the blame on Harry Reid and Max Baucus. They both made this process go much longer than it needed to. Max Baucus wasted too much time on bipartisan talks that were never going to work and Harry Reid wasted too much time on a public option that he knew he never had the votes for. They drug this out way longer than needed. I am by no means of the imagination an Obamabot, but I think he’s been an effective president and he’s done pretty well on HCR.
Polling on HCR hasn’t really changed since November, when Coakley was 30 points up in the poll. Obama hasn’t fallen much either. He fell below 50% and started hovering around the number a while ago. I think there is a general dissatisfaction and desire to throw out anybody associated with the establishment. Congress is polling poorly, but Republicans have higher negatives/lower positives than Democrats. And the majority of Americans blame Bush for the current economic crisis.
If we had been able to get HCR behind us in the fall, we would be talking about winning issues for us–jobs, the economy, and Wall Street reform. Instead, we have spent the last six months fighting about who is going to come out on top and blaming each other for not getting what we wanted. This has been drug out so long, that the American people are sick of it. They’re tired of hearing about it. I’m freaking tired of hearing about it and I support the president on this. They want to hear about jobs, Wall Street, other things. All they see on the news is bad economic news and all they hear from Washington is public option this and Cadillac tax that. The only coherent message they’re getting is from the teabaggers who say that we want raise taxes and take over their health care.
We need to get the damn bill passed, get it behind us, and move on. If Democrats can’t do that, they we don’t deserve to win elections.
psychodrew
I luv ya – but there ia a person elected to lead the US and is head of the Democratic Party – POTUS. Congress did all but beg him publicly for direction – Obama apparently got what he wanted – other than a date to the Prom with a Republican. He’s the one that wasted efforts on bi-partisanship – a la dancing with the Repulbicans. IT surely wasn’t Reids idea.
Hey, psychodrew, if it’s any consolation, the public option papa agrees with you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011902846.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
BluePuppy says:
19 January 2010 at 1:22 pm
“I’m not going to get into a semantic battle over what is socialism and what is not socialism.”
Long day.
I see I’m not going to get any details. I thought so.
Oh well.