Thursday, January 14, 2010

They’re OUR Seats!

As many of us are aware, the Massachusetts’ Senate seat, which was vacated after Senator Ted Kennedy passed away, has become quite a heated race between Martha Coakley[D] and Scott Brown[R]. I have no real dog in this race so I haven’t been following it and I have no idea what the candidate’s ideals are, other than their party affiliation. Although, I did hear this from their most recent debate:






I have to admit that I was impressed with how Brown handled this question. Because he’s 100% correct! It’s NOT the Democrat’s seat; it’s NOT Ted Kennedy’s seat, even though he occupied it for 47 years; it IS the People’s seat.

Look at it this way. Obama’s not in Bush’s seat; Bush wasn’t in Clinton’s seat. The Presiden't seat is the PEOPLE'S seat!

As I said, I was impressed with Brown’s response. I’ve been saying for awhile now that we need MORE men and women representing us in the House AND the Senate who believe as Brown does. It’s the PEOPLE’S House; it’s the PEOPLE’S Senate; therefore they are the PEOPLES’ seats, hence, they are there for us—the PEOPLE. If we had more officials who possessed this type of mentality OUR country wouldn’t be in this current mess. Our officials are there to serve US, not themselves; not big business; not lobbyists. They have a duty to US and the sooner we elect honorable men and women to OUR seats, the faster we will have a country that better reflects our ideals and beliefs.

Politicians aren’t Gods, they are people, just like you and me, and they should be people who will reflect what We the People need and want. The elitist mentality needs to be abolished and be replaced with integrity, honesty and good character—something that has been sorely lacking in the last few decades.

78 comments:

  1. It's without a doubt the smartest thing I have heard from a politician in a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your commentary is right on. As a person with a bit (or I should say a lot)invested, a Brown win would make me quite ecstatic.

    I don't hold with all his positions, but I believe nonetheless he is honest, and has the integrity that an independent minded individual most often possesses.

    BB - I agree!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The liberals always slam republicans for running negative campiagns but it's fine when they go in the mud. It's completely childish to run misleading and lying ads attacking republicans. The level of hypocrisy saying Brown would be a lockstep vote for the GOP while Coakley is a pure dem hack politician is amazing.Then they make mindless ad hominems like Brown is supported by the same "extreme" groups that supported Sarah Palin. Which extreme group would that be? Christians? To them an abortion is the top need of a rape victim,not stabilizing her physical and emotional needs first.

    The liberals are already putting out pre-excuses in case the republican wins. Coakley was just a bad candidate and the party out of power always loses seats in off year elections.
    Coakley is another one of those A-holes that will circumvent the law when it suits her purpose...where do the democrats find these people ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent response and you comments are dead on Pamela!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As far as the line (& your title), I agree that all the US government seats occupied by folks we elect are the people's seats, but I don't believe that anyone--including those people who refer to the seat Kennedy sat in for 47 years as "Kennedy's seat"--are saying otherwise... and I suspect Brown knows that, as well.

    It was a good soundbite, and red meat for those Republicans who plan to vote for Brown (just as they voted for some--& maybe even all--of the candidates who unsuccessfully ran against Kennedy), but I don't know that it played well overall. Putting a Republican (any Republican) into a seat that's been held by a Democrat (any Democrat)for that long a time is a difficult task for the Republican & his supporters and a big change for the voters. (& of course the same would be true if it was a Democrat trying to earn a seat held by a Republican for that long a time, as well.) And when the politician who had the seat was championing an issue toward passage and passed away before getting it over the goal line, the voters are going to ask what a new candidate, particularly one from the opposing party, intends to do about that legislation. To his credit, Brown did more or less answer the question, but I suspect it wasn't the answer that many of those former Kennedy voters wanted to hear...

    On the larger issue though, I completely agree, which is the reason I'm not opposed to government. We ARE government. We elect them, and I still believe that we citizens have power over them, especially those of us who vote. I don't want a government so small we can drown it in a bathtub, because that is where our power as citizens can be exercised. And if I have to choose between big business--whose whole reason for being is to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders, and big government--whose whole reason for being is to perform the duties that we citizens want, the way we want, I know who I'm relying on every time; my government, who is accountable to me.

    I don't see "the government" as some all-powerful entity separate & apart from the citizenry, able to roll over us at any time. I see them as us.

    I admit to having some question as to the exact role of our representatives--I vacillate between wanting ones who pay attention to the letters & phone calls my fellow voters and I make, and do what we tell them to do, and people of character that we elect and trust to do the right thing, regardless of what the latest polls (& thus our letters and phone calls) tell them is popular. But either way--& obviously, there is value in each--I believe in our government because I believe that they are our seats.

    I agree with you where lobbyists, big business, (& unions, though you neglected to mention them) are concerned--although I also recognize that many of these "special interests" are made up of we, the people, as well, so I try to tread more lightly than some when discussing them. I'd like to see money play a smaller role in politics, though I don't know how to reduce it's influence. (Much as I'd love to see bans on donations from lobbyists and corporate pacs & whatnot, as long as corporations have so many of the same rights as people (and almost none of the responsibilities), and money = speech--two of the worst Supreme court decisions (as far as governing goes, anyway), IMHO-- there is little we can do.)

    I know I'm idealistic, but I believe that people rise to meet the expectations we set for them, and I'd rather celebrate what's good about our form of government than bitch about what's not right about it. I don't worship our state or think it's perfect as is, but I do believe in it, because I believe in the American people and our ability to get it right.

    That said, bring on the flaming trollage!! (and the intelligent rebuttals--or attaboy's, if there are any... 8>)

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's Life said:

    "Coakley is another one of those A-holes that will circumvent the law when it suits her purpose...where do the democrats find these people ?"

    He said this after he attacked liberals for running negative campaigns.



    Not attacking you for it TL. I dig it. As far as I'm concerned the libs need to do more of what you just did. Attack the right for negative and misleading attacks. Then attack.


    It works. Thanks for the lesson TL.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, Truth, at least I can say..Thanks for say that you are not attacking me.
    I guess.. (if you see it that way)

    I really doubt if Brown stands a chance but..I for one, hope and pray that Scott Brown kicks her butt to the curb on Tuesday.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What would be really refreshing is if the politicians, whatever party, would remember whose seat it is once they get to Washington!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, Brown is correct, the seat is the people's seat and may the best candidate win. I think That's Life is a little harsh in his description of Martha Coakley. She is more than qualified and dems would not have chosen her if they didn't believe she could win the seat held by a democrat for 47 yrs.

    In endorsing Coakley, The Boston Globe stated, “She is by far the more qualified candidate, in experience and judgment. She has prosecuted hundreds of criminals and helped coordinate plans to protect the state from terrorist threats. As attorney general, she's returned $1 billion to state coffers.”

    The editorial went on to say, “Massachusetts is fed up with Senate wrangling and wants clear answers on health care, climate change, and loose regulation of financial institutions. Coakley, with her hard work and proven skills, is well-qualified to carry this message to Washington.”

    In refuting Scott Brown, The Boston Globe said, “A vote for Brown is hardly a symbolic protest against congressional gridlock and the ways of Washington. It's a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That's what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate.”

    Coakley became Massachusetts’ first female Attorney General in January 2007. Since then, she has established herself as a leader on a variety of issues affecting Massachusetts residents, including addressing the foreclosure crisis that has plagued so many families. She has a proven track record of taking on Wall Street and protecting consumers, recovering record settlements in enforcement actions from companies such as Goldman Sachs and Fremont Investment and Loan for violating consumer protection laws. As part of her Cyber Crime Initiative, Coakley revolutionized the tools available to prosecutors for fighting crime in the 21st century, ensuring that Massachusetts is on the cutting edge of public safety.

    Thanks Pam!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Pamela,

    I agree 100%.

    And if politicians don't start treating and acting their proper positions as our representatives, we should oust them.

    I was no fan of Kennedy. Anyone who would leave a woman to die at the bottom of a BAY, not report that incident for hours, and then beg for his election, should not have been elected.

    I'm not a fan of career politicians.

    I'm not a fan of family political dynasties, whether it's Bush, or Kennedy. When is Jeb Bush going to run for President?

    Of course Brown was smart enough to come up with the correct line. That alone shows he can think on his feet.

    Don't kid yourself; he will hold that seat 47 years, if he can. It was a partisan, but correct, statement on his part.

    By the way, latest polls show that election, to be a toss up. Just weeks ago polls showed the Democrat running away with the election.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Pam, If you are really interested in why all of this liberal B.S. is happening, I think you will like the series of videos I am posting to my blog over the next two weeks, titled IRON MOUNTAIN, A BLUE PRINT TO TYRANNY. You will be shocked.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hope he makes it too. We need to send a strong message.
    My fear is that he will need a bigger lead to overcome ACORN and the massive fraud that defines Massachusetts.
    If they can keep all the dead people away from the polls, the we have a chance..

    ReplyDelete
  13. truth be known, just think a little bit, if ACORN signed dead people up to vote then their little tablets had some names that could be considered fraud. But how can dead people walk to the voting booths? Your conservative attitude about ACORN is so blown out of perspective it's not even funny.

    dead people on a registration sheet does not mean dead people actually voting...duh

    ReplyDelete
  14. Has anyone tried to figure out why Obama wants or even would want to ruin the most beautiful, powerful country in the world? That question has bothered me for a long time.
    Unless he does want to lead us into Socialism!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "It's MY blog,"

    "They're OUR seats"


    What's with all the possessiveness there, Pam?

    It's just take, take, take and mine, mine, mine with you conservatives, isn't it?

    8>)

    ReplyDelete
  16. OK folks, try not to get too carried away...Because of the nature of politics here in the people's republic of Massachusetts, and because of the catastrophy that a Brown victory would represent to the democrats in power, don't for a minute, think this is a done deal.
    Bay Staters: we must install Scott Brown, for the good of our state, and more importantly, for the good of the nation. Help restore some balance, common sense, with the voice of reason, Scott Brown..Also to show this "repsac3" person some humility

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scott Brown is leading in the Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows. Brown with a 4-point lead...
    What's so shocking? Americans do not want Obamacare. Don't the Democrats get that yet?
    The Democrats have ruled for so long, and won so easily in Massachusetts, they may have forgotten how to steal an election.

    ReplyDelete
  18. WE haven't forgotten how. We just haven't ben doing enough of it Northcross.

    What's humorously ironic about all you, I suspect it's the same guy posting as different guys, is that Brown supported Massachusettes universal health care.

    Now he's against it? Why do you righties love hypocrites and liars so darn much? Half the republicans in congress are for term limits. They all ran on that in 1994. But their still there. Liars and frauds. All of them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also to show this "repsac3" person some humility

    Huh?

    First off, the thought of anyone in Mass voting a certain way in the name of teaching me a lesson about humility has exactly the opposite effect. It's anything but humbling to believe that anyone in the state (or anywhere else) thinks I'm that important...

    Second, if this had anything to do with the "possessiveness" comment, it was a joke... Really. Ask Pam to explain it to you because, although she hasn't yet responded, I'll lay money that she took it in the spirit in which it was intended.

    (If it was the earlier comment that sparked that response, Silverfiddle is going to have to be more specific, because I don't understand the point s/he was trying to make... ...which in itself makes me feel just a little humble.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Calm down, folks. It ain’t Tuesday yet. Even Truth101 is getting nervous.
    But if the Dem don't cheat we got a chance.
    You can be sure that Obammie will send in the thugs from ACORN to help out.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nervous? Nah. I haven't been nervous since 1985 Mal.


    Concerned for America? Yes. I've done a good job on union negotiating committees seeing that my Brothers and Sisters get a fair wage and benefit package. We'll be okay. It's America that doesn't have the benefit of union membership and guys like me working for them that I'm concerned about.

    And you know Mal. Even if Brown wins, you will find national health care still going through. The concientious republicans will get on board. They didn't yet because they didn't have to. Dems had their 60 votes so repubs didn't have to worry about Rush's wrath for supporting reform.


    Things will be fine and we'll get you a good health care package mal. Relax.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "You can be sure that Obammie will send in the thugs from ACORN to help out."

    Please.When you use nonsense to try and make a point you invalidate your argument.I strongly disagreed with most of the Bush administration's policy but never used the "Bush planned 9/11 or Katrina was a Bush setup" type of argument.

    Why make wingnut claims when the truth is there ? Obama's policy is effectively Bush's so there is much to criticize. But the criticism is effective only when it is fact-based.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I can appreciate that the race is close'n'all, but I find it hard to take anyone seriously who believes that if Brown doesn't win, Coakley must've cheated...

    Given the makeup of the state & the fact that the polls are all over the place, it'd be pretty easy for Mr Brown to lose fair & square. (And yes, it's also possible, though less likely, that he'll win fair & square.)

    I'd think that before anyone starts reflexively yelling "cheater," one might have something in the way of evidence, or at least a plausible hunch off which to work.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ted Kennedy's old Seat? Who would even want Ted Kennedy's old seat? It's fat, ugly, full of carbuncles, and smelled really bad even before putrefaction set in.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The dummies and corrupted bunch of politicians in that state turned it into a personal possession of the Kennedy family. Well, them days are over... Thank God.
    And the old bag Nancy Pelosi claims that Republicans increased momentum for this year's midterm elections are just "hype" I guess that it must be that medical marijuana she's been smoking..
    You have to understand that I was trying my best to live up to the image of Compassionate Conservative and in a moment of weakness gave her the benefit of the doubt. I assure you I doubt no more.
    The woman is deranged, her obvious lack of understanding of the current mood of the country is a clear indication of just how frighteningly stupid she actually is. Keep up the delusion you anti-American bottom-feeder.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One thing that I have noticed is that almost all of the blogs are attacking Brown because he is a good looking guy… is that a bad thing for liberals? I know they hate pretty ladies (Carrie Prejean), and I know the left hates successful people, and rich people, and people who do well in life, and happy people, and religious people, and good people, but I guess I hadn’t heard that simply being a good looking guy was a bad thing. Anyone else notice this?

    But if Scott Brown does win, then how in the world are the liberals and the media going to spin
    a Scott Brown win in MA?
    There’s no way they can spin it other than a huge disaster for the liberal agenda. Even now they have flown in every democrat and union thug to help muscle Coakley over the finish line. Having done that….how can they smile and say “ummmm she was a bad candidate with a bad campaign……”

    Any thoughts Mr. repsac3? Let's see your progressive spin to it!

    ReplyDelete
  27. The liberal jerks like Obama and Soros are doing their best to derail America and to make her broke. They wanted her penniless. And turned into another communist country.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Liberal leaners are for government-run health care because it will make them "feel good about themselves"...that they are helping all of those poor people who don't have health care. It doesn't matter whether 85% of the people like their health care...they are willing to change everything for the 15% who don't have it. All to "feel good" about themselves. And the Lib politicians do it for the power. They've been planning this for many, many years and they will do anything to pass it...even go against the majority of Americans who don't want it. Political Correctness is a valuable WEAPON, and it's used effectively by all of our enemies, including those within.
    And another thing I'd like to know is, why did this Chicago Thug and his Administration take over two months to decide that the Terriorist American Killer at Fort Hood was actually a terrorist and only hours to decide whether to help Haiti with its natural disaster?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Call me a Republican or call me a Tea Partier, I don’t care……Call Scott Brown anything you want and I would still vote for him. At this point it is ABD. Anybody But a Dem.
    Does anyone in the media or in politics GET IT? We, the people, are sick of all of you.
    Out, out, out!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pissed asked: "Any thoughts Mr. repsac3? Let's see your progressive spin to it!"

    First off, I no more speak for all progressives than you speak on behalf of all conservatives.

    I don't know or care enough about Brown to list all the reasons folks might choose not to vote for him, but I suspect that posing nude--as hot as some of you may think he was while doing it--may make people see him as "unserious." (But then, a lot of things candidates do in the name of getting elected/staying in office make them look like idiots to me, so perhaps I'm not the best judge of that sort of thing. Both Bush on the flight deck & Dukakis in the tank looked like morons playing dress up, far as I was concerned... Wearing a funny hat or flipping a pancake will never earn my vote, though it may cause a candidate to lose it, all other things being equal.)

    Carrie's problem wasn't that she was pretty, it's that she didn't fulfill her pageant contract. I think that Hilton guy treated her poorly, but it wasn't an unfair question to ask. I don't even have a problem with the answer she gave, except that the term "opposite marriage" didn't do anything to fight the stereotype about beauty contestants being airheads. Her answer likely would've lost her my vote if she was running for political office, but it was fine for a beauty queen.

    As for the successful, rich, happy, religious, good people, there's a whole lot of folks with some or all of those characteristics all along the political spectrum, and anyone who says different is letting partisanship cloud their judgement.

    Yes, a Scott Brown win would be a bad for the liberal agenda, and as a liberal, I'm doing all I can to see that it doesn't happen, while still staying true to my ideals.

    Win or lose, Coakley did run a poor campaign. That's obvious to most of us from the fact that she lost her lead... The Dems in Mass were overconfident in the legacy of Kennedy and the blueness of the state, the ones outside of MA didn't pay enough attention,and Coakley herself made some pretty bad statements. It was foolish, and if Coakley loses, we all will pay the price. (Again, that's why I'm doing all I can to see that that doesn't happen. It's obvious that just being the Democrat in the race isn't going to be enough.)

    The fact that Brown is running on being the 41st vote to obstruct is pretty chilling to me--though it obviously makes his fellow 'pubbies happy--and I hope that enough Dems are similarly chilled enough to get off their asses and get out the vote. All this crowing that some in the con media & punditry have been doing will hopefully be enough to scare all the blue voters to the polls.

    It'd be ironic (& kinda funny) if the same kinda overconfidence that at first afflicted the Dems & set Coakley back ends up affecting the 'pubbies, and becomes the very factor that puts Coakley over the top.

    For now, it's a toss-up, and I won't trust any of the polls aside the one Tuesday night.

    ReplyDelete
  31. repsac3 said...

    Pissed asked: "Any thoughts Mr. repsac3? Let's see your progressive spin to it!"

    First off, I no more speak for all progressives than you speak on behalf of all conservatives.



    Holy Crap, for someone that don't speak for all Libs, you sure have a lot of crapola to say!

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Holy Crap, for someone that don't speak for all Libs, you sure have a lot of crapola to say!"

    Sorry there, Pissed...

    I never was any good at regurgitating simplistic little partisan memes, generalizing about whole groups of people, or calling much of anyone names just for having a particular political point of view.

    And, as that one pointless little ad hom line seems to be the whole of your response, I'll think twice before taking you or your comments as seriously, in future.

    I didn't mean to verbally overwhelm you. Actual conversation just takes more words than slingin' mud &/or troll crap, I guess...

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Holy Crap, for someone that don't speak for all Libs, you sure have a lot of crapola to say!

    Things: I believe Respac said: First off, I no more speak for all progressives than you speak on behalf of all conservatives.

    In my humble opinion, he was giving HIS opinion.

    Respac: The Massachusetts election is exciting, to be sure. I don’t follow polls either and will wait until Tuesday night to “hear” the winner.

    I have heard though that many people DO “listen” to polling data and since Brown is leading by a very small margin some are saying this “could” be a detriment to Coakley because it might keep Dems home. The “analogy” there is what good is my vote. I would think it would have the opposite effect, so who knows.

    As far as Brown “posing nude”, well it WAS Cosmo, so how much did it REALLY show? It wasn’t Playgirl. He was 22 at the time and we’ve all done things at 22 that we wouldn’t do at say, 42, 52, 62. I guess it’s all in how you look at it (no pun intended!) Carrie Prejean…I think she milked THAT for everything it was worth! I’m not saying she didn’t believe in her answer, but she got a book deal and guest spots on Fox. I mean, REALLY? Let’s not forget that she also had breast implants paid for by the pageant and has some steamy sex tape floating around, but she’s supposed to be SO wholesome and all. From what ‘I’ understand of the Evangelic Religion, one’s body is one’s temple and one should NOT have altered it with implants…a bit hypocritical? (I have nothing against implants, by the way, I have them myself but I’m not out there preaching Evangelic values to young girls).

    Perez Hilton…he was a big baby and that’s about all I have to say about him. Other than he may need some meds.

    As far as Coakley’s campaign, I don’t know how good it is or isn’t. I haven’t been following. I did hear that she has been pretty nasty against Brown, but there’s nothing new there. Candidates do that all the time. It’s not my cup of tea. I’d rather see Candidates run “clean” campaigns based on their own merits.

    I’d like for Brown to win, don’t get me wrong! Because it would break the filibuster proof Senate that the Dems currently hold. That, to me, is a good thing. I’m not big on either party holding all the power. I don’t want Brown to impede the health care process, but the current health care bill that’s floating around is NOT, in my opinion, in the best interest of our country or her people. We need reform, I agree, but NOT a bill that’s going to tax the hell out of the middle class, cut Medicare, impose mandates, give even more power to the government, not go into effect for 4 years and not even cover all Americans—to name some of what I don’t like about it. I think the only good thing about the bill is the “no pre-existing condition clause”.

    Other than that, may the best (wo)man win!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Pam and your readers, if you really want to see the worst of the worst... Read the blog that I just posted this morning.
    Anyone, Dem or Rep who advocates that voters "Cheat" to win is nothing less than a unAmerican tyrant and a cheat themselves. Does this guy represent thje typical Liberal? Hummm, but these Libs sure know how to blase Glenn Beck or Rush when he says ANYTHING.. My God, if either of them ever said this they would be history over night. Yet the libs get away with it. What a PUTZ!

    ReplyDelete
  36. The bottom line is Brown is a damn good candidate. We can win just about anywhere with the right person and we don't have to be RINOS to do it in spite of idiots like Colin Powell and Micheal (hip hop republicans) Steele say. We lost last year running a moderate and that should be a teachable moment.

    I'll always believe the reason we lost last year was because McCain supported immigration reform. People figured there was no difference between the two parties.A lot of them just satyed home. The media knew this,that's why they pushed MCCain in the primaries

    Im so fricken tired of all the damn hype over Obama!!!
    Liberals BAR NONE, are a bunch of liars and cheats and excuse liars, cheats and outrageous statements. Liberals are such a bunch of hypocrites. It seems their lack of integrity and morals have become pervasive and quite apparent.
    This country could easily fix itself if Obama and the scheming,meddling liberals would get the hell out of the way.

    He's in So far over his head & it shows. his arrogance is off the charts & is being highlighted over his refusal to listen to the majority of Americans who are against the healthcare takeover. We say no yet he continues with the backroom sleazy deals to push it through anyway.

    His administration is full of crooks, cheats, & liars. his homeland security director is incompetent. his vp is a buffoon. he treats terrorists like common criminals. he lies about jobs, spends our money to reward his cronies, then lies again about where the money went. his foreign policy has been a complete disaster & he still thinks he can contain rogue nations by giving one of his bull-shit speeches, where he promises everything to everybody then he goes and taxes everybody to pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Republican party needs more Scott Browns.
    What this shows is that there is no such thing as a "safe seat". The People are outraged and aren't looking to party leadership to fix the situation. The RNC needs to make sure they encourage Constitutional Conservatives to run in every race. 2010 is about doing the will of the People. If the RNC is smart, they'll make sure their candidates meet and understand this, then stand back and not screw it up.

    Obama's numbers would be a lot worse with an objective media and without his person likability.It's probably what people sense about Obama that's killing him. He always seems to press the wrong button.The slide really started over beer-gate.This was a huge unforced error that defined Obama as a person for a lot of people.The over protection of anything Muslim,isn't doing him any favors. People want a staunch American president,not a world president. He has sold us down the road all around the world. In fact there's so many problems with Obama it's almost impossible to focus on one before another one pops up. If it weren't for his ( predigest) high numbers in the African-American Community who overwhelmingly approve of the job he is doing, he'd be holding a 20 percent approval rating right now. But, if the truth be known, less than 10% of those African Americans could identify Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Arlen Specter or Newt Gingrich, and most believe that *hope and change* means more money or new cars and lottery tickets for welfare recipients.
    The worst part of the legacy of possibly the worst president in history is that, though Americans proved we are overwhelmingly capable of electing an African American president, he's made voters so leery that it's going to be a long time before another black president is elected again.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sorry malc, but I can't get too excited about a guy who doesn't even live in the state making a pretty obviously hyperbolic, hyperventilating statement about what "he would do, if..." (Advocating that voters in the state cheat? Hardly).

    It's a stupid comment, sure... But hardly worth getting all excited over, unless one takes every "I could kill that guy" as an honest to God death threat worthy of a phone call to the local police.

    As long as partisans make their living in the ratings driven media, there will always be some among them who say foolish, controversial things.

    "But, if the truth be known, less than 10% of those African Americans could identify Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Arlen Specter or Newt Gingrich, and most believe that *hope and change* means more money or new cars and lottery tickets for welfare recipients."

    Wow. That's all I'm gonna say.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Mr Grabowski,

    Cogent, well-laid out arguments.Just about got me converted.

    "Hip-hop Republicans".That seals the deal right there!

    ReplyDelete
  40. "e bottom line is Brown is a damn good candidate. We can win just about anywhere with the right person and we don't have to be RINOS to do it in spite of idiots like Colin Powell and Micheal (hip hop republicans) Steele say. We lost last year running a moderate and that should be a teachable moment."

    "Boris Shor, a professor at the University of Chicago, makes what appears to be a persuasive case that Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Senate in Massachusetts, is a liberal. Indeed, Shor argues that, objectively speaking, he is more liberal than Dede Scozzafava, the candidate for Congress in New York against whom most conservative turned, opting instead to support a third party candidate." - Paul Mirengoff, @ Power Line - Time out from "Stalinism". (Hardly a liberal source.)

    I( have no problem with folks being politically practical, even when it means compromising their ideals a little, but let's not pretend that teabaggers who're supporting Brown aren't compromising those ideals... Brown may be the best the right can do in MA, but don't for a second pretend that he's not an "east coast moderate RINO" cut from the same cloth as Snowe, Collins, and those precious few others that haven't been run out of the party or switched to the Dems

    ReplyDelete
  41. Respac: Like I mentioned in my post, I don't know where these 2 candidates stand on issues. I did hear that Brown wants to "lower taxes" and won't sign the health care bill. But other than that...I'm clueless...and don't make any silly remarks to THAT! lol!

    If he's a RINO, well, then I guess Mass voters will get what they "asked" for, eh? Voters need to do their "homework" before voting. Placing a "D" or "R" behind someone's name means nothing, look at Specter!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Pam, how in the world can you possibly condone what Satyavati devi dasi said on Shaws blog about using God's nme in vain!

    Shame on you....

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous: What in the Sam Hill are YOU talking about?


    MY GOD!! Get a LIFE!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi Pamela!

    I just wanted to be the first to wish your readers a solemn and respectful Martin Luther King Day.




    Wonderful topic Pamela.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh yes. A special message to my right leaning friends Malcontent and Pissed Off Guy:











    GRAY HEADED BROTHER. GRAY HEADED BROTHER. GRAY HEADED BROTHER.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Truth: Thank you. Same to you.


    P.S. ROFL! You just couldn't help yourself, could you?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Pamela D. Hart said...
    Anonymous: What in the Sam Hill are YOU talking about?
    MY GOD!! Get a LIFE!


    THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!


    Satyavati devi dasi said...
    I think it's time someone laid out the fact in the sun:

    God doesn't give a shit about who's in office.



    and...Pamela D. Hart said...

    Satyavati: YOUR post had MEANING behind it...passion for what you were expressing and it in NO way attacked or insulted anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Good post, Pam.

    I, too, agree with the commenters to say the senate seat in contention in Mass. is the people's seat, not a Democrat's nor a Republican's seat.

    I also want to correct a myth that I hear repeated over and over, that Massachuseets is the "bluest of blue states."

    NOT SO.

    Massachusetts is more of a violet/purple state. We vote the person not the party.

    In the state legislature, it is true, the senate and house is overwhelmingly Democratic, but that is because the legislators are elected in LOCAL elections.

    The facts are these:

    Historically, Massachusetts has had more Republican governors than it has had Democratic governors, who are elected state-wide.

    Historically, Massachusetts has had more Republican senators than it has had Democratic senators, and they too are elected staate-wide.

    I grew up knowing a majority of Republican governors, and I also remember Edward Brooke, Republican, being elected to the US Senate as the first African-American Senator since Reconstruction.

    I believe that Brown will win on Tuesday. This will be a difficult circumstance for the Democrats, but at the same time, a valuable lesson for them as well.

    ReplyDelete
  49. TRUTH 101 said...

    Oh yes. A special message to my right leaning friends Malcontent and Pissed Off Guy:
    GRAY HEADED BROTHER.


    I guess YOU had some meaning in that post when you wrote it Truth, but the meaning beats the hell out of me.
    But don't even bother to explain, I really couldn't care less. If it makes you feel better then that's great. You guys need all the help you can get these days...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous: Do you GET sarcasm?
    As in: MY GOD! GET A LIFE! There "I" used "God's" name in vain, too! Get it now?


    Of course I defended Satyavati! She WAS impassioned, therefore her using “shit” in the same sentence as “God” makes not a damn bit of difference. IF there is a “God”, I’m sure he’s MORE concerned with what’s in her HEART than what she SPELLS on her keyboard.

    I repeat: MY GOD! GET A LIFE!
    And find another blog while you're at it!

    ReplyDelete
  51. I also want to correct a myth that I hear repeated over and over, that Massachuseets is the "bluest of blue states."

    Shaw: I wonder if the reason people "claim" Mass is "the bluest of blue states" is because Kennedy held his seat for 47 years? They tend to "forget" the other Senators. Me included. :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am not the same Anonymous person, but I would like to answer anyway!

    Sorry but being "impassioned" is NO excuse for what she said.

    If that be the case then you could say the same about any law breaker, murderer, bank robber, wife beater, cheater, etc... get the point. People must be responsible for their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  53. VOTE FOR BROWN!
    It's time for all Americans to take a stance and say NO to their party rhetoric and realize that Obama is not qualified to be our President and the world's leadery. We can't be that ignorant of a country. It just can't be.
    It's becoming all too obvious that American people who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. No Political experience? Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? Ayers, Wright, Revko aren't the ones to help in uniting this country. If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. And she is our First Lady? The only thing I can gather from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes and little, if any, defense against terrorism. Obama wants to add more taxes to oil companies profits while ignoring the drilling we can do in our own country to help lower our dependence on foreign oil. How many Americans are that stupid to believe that his added tax on the oil companies will reduce the cost of a gallon of gas? And I haven’t even talked about Obama’s apologizing for America.etc.
    Haven't we had more than enough already?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous: Oh PAHLEEZ! We’re NOT talking about breaking the law here! We’re talking about using shit and God in the same sentence—it’s not even an offense that will get you a god-damn ticket!

    Take YOUR Religious bigotry somewhere else and go say a few Hail Mary's while you're at it...you need 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Had to go read what Satyavati devi dasi actually said for myself. (If you're going to bring up stuff that's posted somewhere else, may I suggest adding a link to it, so that everyone can read it for themselves, in context.)

    Not sure what it is the naysayers are taking issue with (this time.) Is it that she used the word "shit"? The idea that God doesn't meddle in the day to day affairs of man--including a statewide special election to fill a US senate seat, as important as that is to many of us?

    Call me crazy, but I doubt that Pam gave a thought to Satyavati using the name of God in vain. (I question whether Satyavati actually did that in the first place) but even if she did, there was more than that one line in the comment, the point of which was to say that God cares more about who you are inside than your success, your possessions, your status...

    That's a sentiment with which I agree, and--while I don't want to put words in her mouth--what Pam seemed to be agreeing with, as well.

    It's fine to disagree, perhaps invoking the least little sparrow--though again I'd say it's what's in the heart of the sparrow, rather than where the sparrow falls in the local sparrow hierarchy--but to do so, one must discuss--& name--God.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Respac: Sorry I didn’t provide a link. I thought it would end after the 1st Anon Troll…just goes to show a sane person can’t anticipate a troll’s mind! Besides, it’s not wise to mess with a woman who suffers from chronic migraines and I have a raging one today!

    Satyavati didn’t use God’s name in vain. Not from what I can tell, anyway. She used shit in the same sentence as God. Oh wow! That’s grounds for a one-way ticket to HELL, I’m sure!

    Satyavati's comment was impassioned and written from her HEART. She is true to her religion and a caring, compassionate woman and wouldn’t say or do anything against her religion or God. So, for some troll to say differently just ticked me off. I defended her there and I’m defending her here, because I feel she’s RIGHT. Her comment was in response to an Anonymous poster who wrote to “pray” for Brown to win the election and “pray” that God changes Brown’s stance on abortion. Come on. How silly is THAT? Did you read MY comment to this troll? I have NO tolerance for people who “pray” for elections, sports games, status, money or fame. Pray for the Haitians, pray for the living children who are suffering, but do NOT pray for a damn election! Get out and vote.

    I guess you can tell I’m kinda pissy. Sorry. Migraines will do that to you. Guess that’s why I normally don’t blog when I have one.

    ReplyDelete
  57. If you couldn't care less then why did you answer my comment Mal?

    I think you do care. You're just trying to impress somebody. Good luck with that dude. The road to a certain lady's good graces begin with a good attack on sweet old Truth 101.



    I'm always glad to help a fellow guy get hooked up.

    Seats in congress must be earned by actions.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sorry to be off topic by answering this "Anonymous," delete away,Pam if this is offensive.

    Anonymous said...
    I am not the same Anonymous person, but I would like to answer anyway!

    Sorry but being "impassioned" is NO excuse for what she said.

    If that be the case then you could say the same about any law breaker, murderer, bank robber, wife beater, cheater, etc... get the point. People must be responsible for their actions.


    Dear Anonymous,

    It is NOT against the law to use the word "shit" in a comment on a blog. It is against the law to murder, beat one's wife, cheat (on taxes, yes, by not using a name, but instead hiding behind "Anonymous?" No. That's not against the law.

    You comparison is absurd and childish.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Dear Shaw Kenawe ... No one said that what she said was against the law, I was referring to the excuse of doing so and saying because she was "passionate"

    READ, and READ again!
    Your reading comprehension skills need a sharpening.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous: No, YOUR comprehension skills need sharpening!

    Impassioned is defined as:
    filled with intense feeling or passion; passionate; ardent.

    Satyavati was PASSIONATE about PRAYING! And THAT is a far cry from a murderer feeling intense passion while KILLING another human being, or a bank robber passionately craving money. Wouldn’t you say? Satyavati also takes FULL responsibility for HER beliefs! Your analogy of CRIME and RELIGION just don’t cut it…sorry…go back to fifth grade and try again.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Pamela D. Hart said...
    Anonymous: No, YOUR comprehension skills need sharpening!


    Pamela D. Hart, I read all of the posts and comments regarding this "God" comment and I have to say that you are getting very selective in who you are allowing to get away with what! What Satyavati devi dasi actually said was very offensive to anyone that is religious and in my honest opinion anyone that was offended had every right to be so. You or Saw or that nincompoop Respac3 can make all the excuses in the world if you whis too, but I like so many of the other thought it was a HORRIBLE thing to say.

    Thank you and if you don't like what I said, go ahead and delete that!

    ReplyDelete
  62. My Right View: First of all, THE comment was not posted here. It was at another blog. A cowardly Anonymous poster decided to BREAK my rules and chastise me here. I decided, since it’s MY blog, to call out this spineless troublemaker.

    Secondly, I stand by my RIGHT to defend Satyavati’s comment because in its entirety it is PASSIONATE and I believed everything she stated to another Anonymous troll.

    Lastly, none of us, Shaw, Respac or I are “nincompoops” because we believe that God is MORE concerned with what’s in a person’s heart than “praying” for an election win!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Pamela said:"
    Lastly, none of us, Shaw, Respac or I are “nincompoops” because we believe that God is MORE concerned with what’s in a person’s heart than “praying” for an election win!"

    Never said that YOU or Shaw was a “nincompoop”
    I said that repac3 was because of his or her post.
    Please get that straight.


    AND, I was not referring to the statement about "that God is MORE concerned with what’s in a person’s heart than “praying” for an election win!"

    But to the mentioning of GOD in the same sentence of that "S" word. And I repeat, it was a HORRIBLE thing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  64. My Right View: I stand corrected on the "ninconpoops" but still don't think Respac is one because he agrees with me that it's more important to pray for the poor souls in Haiti than an election.

    I'm curious, have you read Satyavati's ENTIRE comment? Because I think it's relevant. Satyavati was passionate because the anonymous commenter felt it was more important to pray for Brown to win the election than to pray for those suffering in Haiti or for living children being abused at the hands of their very own parents. To me, saying shit in a sentence with God is peanuts in comparison.

    The point of Satyavati's comment was that God cares more for what's in a person's heart, not elections, not material possessions, not fame and fortune. And if using shit got her point across, so be it. We've all heard worse...heck, I've said worse! And if that places me on a fast track to hell...well I guess I better buckle up.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Pam:

    I've been remiss in not replying to your comments, of late.

    First off on "Brown the RINO". I'm not saying he isn't a Republican or that he won't generally vote like one, should he be elected, including opposing the health care reform bill squeaking it's way through Congress. But what I am saying is, he's no Michelle Bachmann or ____ (whoever else the teabaggers luuurrrvvvee in congress.) His record puts him on par with the rest of the east coast lib'ruls that many teabaggers talk about purging from the party, and should he actually serve as a Senator, many of the same people who've been working for & applauding every word that's fallen from his lips in this campaign--& particularly the baggers who are not from MA, and don't have much of a handle on what is & isn't possible here in the northeast--are going to be lumping him in with Snowe, Collins, and the rest of the RINOs who're in the Republican party. He's probably about the best the Republicans can do in MA--& there's something to be said for voting one's head, rather than one's heart--but on many issues, he's no conservative. (The real 'bagger idialogues will be the one's voting for a guy named Kennedy (no relation), who is far & away the best (or worst, from my point of view) conservative/tea party candidate in the race. He'll get votes, but not many... ...and that's why the smart 'baggers are compromising their values and voting for the best they can get in MA. Were I them, I'd do the same.)

    As for the link thing, I think it was incumbent on the troll who wished to discuss it to make clear what in hell s/he was talking about... ...but then, I was surprised you let it stand, in the first place--in part because it was some random comment from a different blog and had zero to do with the subject at hand here (who the hell does that, but a troll?) and in part because s/he didn't take the time to make it clear what s/he was talking about.

    You were under no obligation to provide the link, even after deciding to reply. That said, it is a whole different ball of wax when read complete, and in context.

    My Right View: I'm sorry you think me a nincompoop, but I'm curious what it was I said that makes you feel that way... I can appreciate that people disagree, where religion is concerned, and that some religious opinion is going to be offensive to folks who hold a different religious opinion, no matter how it's intended, but I really didn't think that anything I said was "nincompoop-worthy," or particularly offensive. I'd be happy to discuss it with you, if you'd be willing to oblige... (And, it's "his post," btw... My name's James, though I prefer to use repsac online, since I've been doing so for so many years...)

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'd like to chime in on the God comment. I was raised in a strict religious home where there was no cursing and NEVER did my parents use Gods name in vain. "Myrightview" says it was HORRIBLE for Satyavati to say shit and God in the same sentence. Thats not using Gods name in vain as I was taught. If a person was to say in anger "God damnit, you stupid jerk", or "Jesus Christ you are dumb". That is taking the name of the Lord in vain. (as I was taught). I am 54 yrs old and have never said those words and never will, I'm not fanatical about religion but it's just wrong to me. Some people speak that way so casually and I find it offensive.
    So, there you have my 2 cents! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sue: If you noticed in my comments, I DID use "God's" name in vain. But I did this to prove a point to the pin-headed trolls, not to offend anyone or anyone's religion.

    Thank you for your "religious" view-point, Sue. I've been trying to contact my parents, who are devout Catholics to hear their take on this. As soon as I get their opinion, I'll post it.

    I realize this is WAY OFF-TOPIC, but it is what it is and this is MY blog. So for now, it's ON TOPIC.

    ReplyDelete
  68. So all this hysteria over the word shit.

    But o, you poor offended ones, do you get the point? Shall I say it with censorship so you can get past it and see what I was trying to say?

    GOD DOES NOT GIVE A HOOT ABOUT WHO'S IN OFFICE.

    Okay?

    That's the POINT. The POINT is that GOD is more worried about whether all the SHIT you preach is the same SHIT, or DIFFERENT SHIT, than what you have in your heart.

    We could just let him read this thread and he'd know.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Satyavati: Yep, all this hype over "shit".

    Guess what I did today?

    Picked up dog shit from my back yard.

    (I normally don't swear, BUT trolls make ya do the damndest things)

    ReplyDelete
  70. We had a lecture once in nursing school entitled 'Shit Or Die'.

    It's true. If you don't, you do.

    Thanks for the support. I find the responses that got put out here amazingly accurate and typical of people who don't want to address the actual point of a matter: instead, they find some small, virtually meaningless item about it, and cause a rumpus that distracts attention away from the real topic.

    I would venture to guess that the Religious Right whose panties became entangled in intricate macrame knots over the single use of the word 'shit' in a single sentence... really didn't want to deal with the actual subject matter of the comment, and in order to stave off that discomfiture, decided to provide a diversion by swooning in horror over the least pertinent part of the post.

    This way, no one really has to deal with the uncomfortable truth of the matter.

    You see it all the time on Fox News.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Why is it that so many naysayers spend more time calling folks names (or making fun of their actual names) and saying THAT they disagree, and so little time expressing WHY they disagree?

    You think I'm a nincompoop (or worse), based on my comments about God and shit. Bully for you. (As I've said before, opinions are like assholes. Yours smells rosy, compared to everyone else's.) That & a few buck'll get you a coffee at Starbucks.

    Anyone care to explain why you wish to be so derisive toward those with whom you disagree, or is derisiveness it's own reward?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Satyavati devi dasi said...

    We had a lecture once in nursing school entitled 'Shit Or Die'.


    Oh, isn't that clever! I wouldn't want YOU to be my nurse.
    Although I'd bet you good at changing Bed Pans.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Oh, isn't that clever! I wouldn't want YOU to be my nurse.

    I wouldn't mind having you for a patient. All my patients get equal care, regardless of how abusive they are. And some are very abusive. But I make sure they get everything they need, and that they get the best care possible.

    Now I've seen people who have said they don't want a white nurse, or a black one, or a Yankee one... this is someone who's not really sick, just ignorant.

    And it's true. If you get constipated enough, you'll get an impaction, and if it's not addressed, pretty soon you'll be vomiting stool and then if there's till no intervention you're going to die. That's the facts.

    Just so you know.

    ReplyDelete
  74. As perhaps the most openly Christian Liberal in these parts I feel it my duty to remind everyone, righties, lefties, assholes, nincompoops and anonymous trolls that God loves the shit out of all of us.



    Corrupt politicians that think a seat in Congress is theirs for life must be thrown out of office.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Obama promised change but all we have gotten is politics as usual, and deals made by the elites behind closed doors.
    she would make a fine addition to the Senate along with Harry "Let me bribe you" Reid, Chuckie "Little Porkie" Schumer, Chris "The tiny tot republican made me do it" Dodd and a whole slew of other bozos we have to listen to everyday.


    Democrat and Republican incumbents better start listening to the people

    The blame starts at the top...with George Bush..Opps, I forget, he's nop longer in office.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Truth said: "Corrupt politicians that think a seat in Congress is theirs for life must be thrown out of office."

    Well spoken. The representatives should be of the people, not princes permanently occupying their God-given thrones gaining more and more riches and power at public expense each time they are re-elected. And they rig the law to make it hard for anyone to oppose them (McCain-Feingold, which censored criticism of elected officials, was a prime example of this).

    ReplyDelete
  78. There's no question that Brown ran a better campaing than did Coakley.

    That, and the fact that voters are restless, confused, and fearful, helped Brown win the seat.

    Let's see if he can be a relevant senator.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...