As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
Sounds stunningly close to what we have been living through for the past few years.
According to TheHill, this administration is now racing Scott Brown in order to enact their version of healthcare because Paul Kirk WILL VOTE FOR this legislation. I have been warning my readers about what will happen when Brown and the rest of America pulls off the “Massachusetts Miracle”, and to keep pacing themselves so as to avoid aneurysms and heart failure. Winning an election in America no longer means the same thing it did a decade ago.
Democrats are rushing to finalize healthcare legislation as their hold on the 60th vote in the Senate appears to be slipping.
A deal on healthcare reform is “very close,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Friday. “I would certainly hope that within the next 24, 48, 72 hours, we have a general agreement between the Senate and the House.”
This is a sure sign that even democratically controlled Massachusetts has gotten the message that our federal government is morphing into a beast that is no longer in line with the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to seat the new senator as soon as results are certified and Vice President Joe Biden is available to administer the oath of office, a Reid aide told State News Service.
That date looks to be Jan. 29, which would give local and state officials time to receive overseas ballots and military ballots and then finalize the results.
The Senate requires an official election certification before a senator can be sworn in.
Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said Wednesday that certifying the election results could take weeks.
Meanwhile, interim Sen. Paul Kirk (D) has said he would vote for the healthcare bill no matter who wins the special election.
The Jan. 29 swearing-in date could give both chambers time to vote on the legislation, which still needs a Congressional Budget Office score. Democrats said they hoped to have the bill to the CBO by Saturday. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the full text of the bill would be published online for 72 hours before a House vote.
Does anybody believe that we are going to be able to see whatever the White House and SEIU’s Andy Stern decided for the rest of us for that 72 hour window before a vote?
Now, from Politico breaking news email:
President Obama will campaign for Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley on Sunday, POLITICO has learned, a sign that Democrats are deeply worried about her prospects and the party’s 60-seat majority.
BOSTON — President Obama will campaign for Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley on Sunday, POLITICO has learned, a sign that Democrats are deeply worried about her prospects and the party’s 60-seat majority.
With a new poll showing Coakley, the state attorney general, down by four percent, Democrats have decided to call in their biggest gun to rouse the Democratic base here before the Tuesday special election.
Details on the Obama visit were not finalized mid-day Friday. Coakley had been keeping schedule on Sunday open, in hopes for a presidential visit, but didn’t get word of Obama’s decision until Friday morning.
This administration still isn’t listening. They are still playing their little games with healthcare and seating senators. We drew a line in the sand on 9.12.09, and they ignored us. Let’s see what happens next Tuesday…
This qualifies as a Daily Crime. We must do everything legally possible to stop the Obama Redistributive Nightmare. I think it is time for those Americans that still have accounts at the big banks to think about moving your money to a community bank. Send a message to the biggest banks that we did not like them almost collapsing our economy, and a message to this administration that their continued redistribution of wealth by forcing us to pay higher fees so that those risky banks can pay us back is ludicrous, and criminal.
The president, who said his resolve in recouping taxpayer funds has been stiffened by reports of “obscene bonuses,” formally unveiled his plan for a new tax on large financial firms. The tax, which the White House calls a “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee,” is expected to raise $117 billion over about 12 years, and $90 billion over the next 10 years. Around 60% of the revenue will come from the 10 largest financial firms.
If approved by lawmakers, the fee would go into effect June 30 and last at least 10 years. It would amount to 0.15% of total assets minus high-quality capital, such as common stock, and disclosed and retained earnings. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-covered deposits and insurance-policy reserves would be untaxed because such assets are already subject to federal fees, according to the White House. The tax would hit around 50 banks, insurance companies and large broker-dealers. Of those, about 35 would be U.S. companies and 10 to 15 would be U.S. subsidiaries of foreign financial firms.
How can Obama b*tch and complain about bonuses when he rewarded failure? What does he expect? TARP has given his administration a populist bully pulpit to hammer away at his redistributive change methodology.
Is it at all possible that you, as an American consumer with the power of the purse strings, might not want to play Bambi’s game anymore? Just look at Ford who is rising from the ashes, and received no government handouts.
In a prime example of a Progressive Socialist Democratic Party “I want my cake, and I want to eat it too” moment, Barney Frank is planning on hearings to limit Wall Street bonuses. The “I want my cake” moment? How does one implement a 90% tax on executive bonuses, proceed to limit them, and not understand that it is counterproductive? If the true intention of the tax “was the quickest way to show angry Americans that Congress intended to recoup the extra dollars”, then why limit them? I know, I know, I’m not even covering the un-American, anti-Capitalist, anti-Free Market angle of this because we all know the democrats have gone off the marxist cliff, and are dragging us into third world, banana republic status with them.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is mounting a new effort to limit executive compensation as Wall Street prepares this month to pay out huge bonuses.
Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he is looking at levying new taxes or fees on financial firms as well as ways to further empower shareholders to restrict pay.
“The question of compensation for people in the financial industry is a legitimate cause of concern,” Frank said on Wednesday.
Frank called a hearing for Jan. 22 and said he is not convinced by arguments that restrictions would hurt the industry by forcing well-paid employees to go elsewhere.
“I don’t know where people would go for comparable salaries,” he said, saying that they might need to go to Mars to escape.
“There may be in some of these financial institutions people capable of playing Major League Baseball. I’m not aware of any.”
The heads of the nation’s biggest banks were testifying on Wednesday before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a panel set up by Congress to investigate the causes and consequences of the financial crisis.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is moving to impose a new fee on banks to make up the deficit in the government’s $700 billion bailout program for the industry.
WHAT? How stupid is that? I swear the morons in Washington do not understand the finite concept. There is only so much money in the world (unless you are the Fed) and it is constantly in motion. When Obama fines the banks to recoup the money he took from us to bail them out, the banks charge us higher feesto pay us backfor the money we loaned them. WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT? Is there an understanding NOW why so many were against the bailouts back in September, 2008?
The fee on financial institutions would raise up to $120 billion to ensure that taxpayers who bailed out banks are paid back, the official said Tuesday. The figure is at the upper end of a conservative estimate of losses associated with the program and Treasury officials expect the actual number will be much lower.
And in a completely related story; has anyone informed God that Barney is running the universe now? Barney’s first miracle will be to limit bonuses but still be able to tax the initial intended amount by the 90% tax rate and recoup the money that was lost on TARP. The best financial talent in America will be able to pay the tax with money they never received and will continue to work here in the United States Of Socialist America.
(Has anyone told The Chosen One that Barney has leapfrogged him for the throne, and does the average secular moonbat know that there is a God and Barney has taken his seat?)
The White House Tuesday argued President Barack Obama’s “steady diplomacy” had made America stronger and renewed its moral authority despite “unprecedented challenges” in his first year in office.
‘Unprecedented challenges’, like being totally ignorant and lacking any experience on any of the major issues, the economy, THE CONSTITUTION?
But the assessment, posted on the White House website, did not dwell on the lack of success garnered by one of Obama’s top priority foreign policy drives, peace moves in the Middle East, and reflected a tougher tone on Iran.
WHEREAS, the duly-elected President of these United States, Barack Obama, a Democrat, has determined that,
a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically; and,
b) he chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline, and having duly decided that,
c) one more meaningless advisory body probably couldn’t hurt anything, and might actually look good, and,
WHEREAS, the first anniversary approacheth of said Democrat taking the oath of office two times just to be safe, this 44th president having been duly stung by growing whispers that he’s paying way too much attention to the usual Democratic domestic spending programs in general and….
…expanding healthcare specifically at an enormous cost to be finally paid by someone else years down the road, possibly to the detriment of time and money invested in national security affairs in general and connecting terrorism plot intelligence dots specifically in the present,
THEREFORE, be it known that said president, under the authority granted to him by a pretty sizable majority of American voters in November 2008, and in the midterm election year interests of appearing to do something, anything, about national defense beyond admitting to unacceptable “screw-ups” by others over not dot-connecting, has this previous day ordered the creation of a new, really important Council of Governors.
Said swell body shall consist of ten (10) governors, half from said president’s esteemed Democratic Party, and half from the other crowd still trying to get its political act together 14 months after crashing in electoral flames piloted by, well, a pilot and a pitbull wearing lipstick;
These governors, surely to include those of both the male and female persuasion from representative regions of these United States and having both light and dark skins as determined by the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, hereby referred to herein as Harry Reid of Nevada, shall meet now and then and talk at great length with federal designees with uselessly long job titles to discuss the National Guard and other topics involving the homeland, the results of which may or may not ever seep up to the big guy who no longer needs to wear a suit coat in the Oval Office.
None of this Executive Order shall be deemed to matter whatsoever beyond the PR associated with its perfunctory issuance on the 11th day of January in the year of our you-know-who-but-we-can’t-say-or-the-ACLU-will-sue 2010, the 356th day of said president’s reign and the 234th year, give or take, of this Nation’s independence.
The actual text of the order:
January 11, 2010 Executive Order
Establishment of the Council of Governors
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181), and in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments to protect our Nation and its people and property, it is hereby ordered as follows:Section 1. Council of Governors.
(a) There is established a Council of Governors (Council). The Council shall consist of 10 State Governors appointed by the President (Members), of whom no more than five shall be of the same political party. The term of service for each Member appointed to serve on the Council shall be 2 years, but a Member may be reappointed for additional terms.
(b) The President shall designate two Members, who shall not be members of the same political party, to serve as Co-Chairs of the Council.
Sec. 2. Functions. The Council shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism; the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security.Such views, information, or advice shall concern:
(a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States;
(b) homeland defense;
(c) civil support;
(d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and
(e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.
Sec. 3. Administration.
(a) The Secretary of Defense shall designate an Executive Director to coordinate the work of the Council.
(b) Members shall serve without compensation for their work on the Council. However, Members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law.
(c) Upon the joint request of the Co-Chairs of the Council, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, provide the Council with administrative support, assignment or detail of personnel, and information as may be necessary for the performance of the Council’s functions.
(d) The Council may establish subcommittees of the Council. These subcommittees shall consist exclusively of Members of the Council and any designated employees of a Member with authority to act on the Member’s behalf, as appropriate to aid the Council in carrying out its functions under this order.
(e) The Council may establish a charter that is consistent with the terms of this order to refine further its purpose, scope, and objectives and to allocate duties, as appropriate, among members.
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) the term “State” has the meaning provided in paragraph (15) of section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(15)); and (b) the term “Governor” has the meaning provided in paragraph (5) of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(5)).
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(1) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or (2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
/s/ BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 11, 2010 ###
So the question continues to be; “Do You Trust Barack Obama?”
The latest job numbers came out this morning and everybody is still holding their breath, but thinking about relaxing just a wee bit because the 10% unemployment rate didn’t change. Don’t. They are spinning these numbers, and of course, not giving the full picture (as usual). There seems to be some encouraging news from different industry sectors with the belief that the worst is behind us and that business may start hiring in a few months time. This would be the time to stop spending the stimulus on “shovel ready” projects that never happen and divert that cash towards tax breaks for small businesses.
Stuart Varney from Fox Business has a simple rundown that will help you understand the next part.
From The Wall Street Journal, and as usual, bold emphasis is mine.
Employers cut another 85,000 jobs last month, dashing hopes of a turnaround in employment, even as the U.S. economy grows.
With December’s losses, there were 7.2 million fewer jobs than in December 2007, when the recession began. Although the unemployment rate was unchanged at 10% from November, that’s only because many workers stopped looking for work and weren’t counted in the numbers. A broader measure of unemployment, including those who have quit job hunting as well as those working part time because they can’t find full-time work, remained about the same at 17.3% in December from 17.2% in November.
Here is the part that people haven’t taken into account, and aren’t telling you about.
Even once jobs come back, the unemployment rate may continue to rise. To keep up with a growing population, the economy needs to add about 100,000 jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate stable.
Moreover, many people have stopped looking for work in response to the poor jobs environment. As a result, they don’t show up in the Labor Department’s tally of the unemployed.
In fact, a key reason why the unemployment rate didn’t increase in December was that work force declined by 661,000. As a result, as the labor market improves, and people re-enter the work force and begin looking for work, the unemployment rate could rise.
Can you imagine what the numbers would look like if those 661,000 were still looking for employment?
In the construction sector, hammered by the housing bust, the labor market worsened, with 53,000 jobs lost, compared with a November loss of 27,000. Nearly a third of the jobs lost were in the kinds of heavy-construction and engineering projects that much of the government’s economic-stimulus efforts are directed at creating, said Michael Carey, an economist with Calyon Securities in New York. “It seems like it should be working the other way,” he said.
Think back to when we absolutely, positively had to pass a $787 Billion Dollar Porkulus Bill to stimulate the economy. On December 10, 2009, the GAO sent a letter and 167 page report to congress detailing their assessment. The breakdown for the $787B is as follows. (Source: US Treasury via Recovery.gov 12.31.09)
Report to the Congress States’ and localities’ use of Recovery Act funds continues as the nation responds to the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Congress and the administration crafted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)1 with the broad purpose of stimulating the economy. As of November 27, 2009, $69.1 billion, or about one quarter of the approximately $280 billion in Recovery Act funds for programs administered by states and localities, had been paid out. Estimates show that the largest share of the funds is expected to be spent in fiscal year 2010.
Anybody still confused as to why our economy is mired in mud? $257 Billion has been disbursed with the majority not set to be awarded or paid out until later this year. Also, the one section that was meant to create jobs, namely Contracts, Grants and Loans, has had the lowest disbursement rate. No one screams and beats the drum for almost a trillion dollars to “stimulate the economy”, and then does a pre-ghost Scrooge. No one is this stupid. Are you listening Barry? Why are you weakening our country through our economy?
America is a democratic capitalist country and the barometer for its strength is not the size of it’s military, it is the condition of it’s economy; like it or not. – Logistics Monster
…and we have been watching the fallout from lack of leadership from our elected officials and the raping and pillaging by financial pirates who chose to walk on the darkside because they could make a massive amount of money; quickly and quietly.
I know that I am not the only American that has known that the economy has gone from suffering the sniffles, then a slight cold, then a really bad head cold, to pneumonia. I have been watching the industry that I work in suffer for over two years now and have been living with the threat of layoff for about as long. A little over a year ago I was doing the groundwork for a business opportunity and just felt that it was not the right time to invest massive amounts of cash, time and energy into that project. I made the decision to not go forward and exactly two days later the whole Countrywide fiasco hit the MSM. As you might guess, I am very happy I did not travel that road but it does show that the wolf has been moving up the food chain gradually, quietly and relentlessly. Meanwhile, as the wolf has come down the mountain to feed upon average American’s paychecks, savings, retirement and college funds; our “leaders” have been doing absolutely nothing to hunt this demon down and dispatch it, with the exception of John McCain AND Hillary Clinton. I am once again left asking myself, why the devil is Barack Obama in this race at all? What was he doing two years ago; teaching economics or running a multi-million dollar company? If not, shut the hell up. I will not believe any rhetoric that comes out of his mouth because he has no chops to back it up.
We all know that the wolf was allowed to make it all the way inside our homes and eat our beloved Spot and the goldfish before somebody actually cried, “Market Collapse, Depression, Economic Crisis”, and decided that maybe they should actually put their heads together and try to fix what has become an intricately woven web of lies, deceit, and financial sleight of hand. I’m not holding my breath. Good Luck With That.
And now here we sit with 17.3% unemployment. I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
“I will vote against the health care bill because it is bad for Massachusetts and bad for the country If you believe the health care bill has been mishandled and that it will lead to more government, higher taxes and increased spending, then vote for me and I will stop it from becoming law.”- Scott Brown, December 23, 2009.
Massachusetts has 21 more reasons to vote for Scott Brown over Martha Coakley (D, SEIU, Obama, etc.)
Massachusetts can send the District of Criminals a message that is louder and clearer than anything that has come before by electing a republican to Dead Kennedy’s seat.
You’re in a union, and you’re going to have to pay a 40 percent tax on your “Cadillac” health-care plan if Martha Coakley gets a chance to vote for Obama’s health-care rationing bill.
You’re still waiting for that property-tax relief that Deval Patrick promised you in 2006.
You’re on kidney dialysis and you have to pay for your treatment . . . but illegal aliens don’t.
You’ve been rear-ended by a drunken state senator.
You’ve been groped in Lowell by a state senator who, when arrested, gave police the name of a state rep.
You lost your appetite for lunch one day when you observed a female state senator in a restaurant stuffing FBI cash bribes into her bra.
You watch this crime wave emanating from the State House and wonder why the attorney general can’t seem to find one single solon to arrest, when the feds have no difficulty whatsoever nailing House speaker after speaker after speaker on serious felonies – not the technicalities Martha Coakley’s gone after Sal DiMasi for.
You own a package store in the Merrimack Valley, and you’re getting killed by the hacks’ new 6.25 percent sales tax on alcohol, on top of the 37 percent excise tax.
You believe that if someone rapes his 23-month-old niece with a hot curling iron, the district attorney should go after the rapist even before the child’s mother files a complaint – even if the perp is a politically wired cop and the DA is running for higher office.
You believe that if the governor’s appointees rubberstamp a $44 million utility-rate increase, and then the next week Deval pockets $7,000 in contributions from that same power company’s executives (and spouses) at their lobbyist’s office, perhaps the attorney general should at least have . . . a comment.
You don’t have a big problem with making county jailbirds pay $5 a day room and board at the House of Correction, even if the SJC does.
You do, however, have a problem with Billy Bulger’s $198,205.92 state pension (with survivor’s benefits).
Your local property-tax bill is rising almost as fast as the value of your home is dropping.
You wonder why Martha Coakley never apologized to Tookie Amirault.
You’ve had to wait hours in line at a Registry office to renew your driver’s license after they shut down your local branch because of the state’s alleged fiscal crisis – but they still want to give free tuition at state colleges to illegal aliens.
You’re a veteran, and you wonder why you’re supposed to vote for an ardent supporter of the administration whose Homeland Security secretary refuses to call real terrorists terrorists, but who last spring issued a memo to local cops warning that “the return of military veterans . . . could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups.”
You can’t figure out why you’re supposed to care about the endorsement of Martha Coakley by some woman from Louisiana whose father did his own bit at Club Fed, and by some guy who put a woman in a wheelchair for life back on Nantucket.
You did at least some of your Christmas shopping in New Hampshire to beat the 25 percent sales tax increase the Democrats imposed on working people to pay for the corrupt hackerama that Martha Coakley so proudly endorses.
Your federal income taxes are going through the roof in 2011 when the Bush tax cuts expire – and Martha Coakley thinks that’s just wonderful.
You’d like to send a message to the limousine liberals who are driving this state and this country off a cliff.
#21: From an email from the Brown Campaign. If you are an activist that wishes to go into Massachusetts to help Scott stop Obamacare, his campaign will provide food and lodging for you.
Scott Brown will be the 41st Republican to stop Obamacare if he wins on Jan 19.
We are less than two weeks away from making history. We’re the only state in this nation about to elect a U.S. Senator. The choice we make will send a powerful message to the big-spenders in Washington, and just in time. They need to quit expanding the Federal government, and start expanding this economy and defending our jobs.
Scott Brown needs your help. Will you help us make history?
We have put together a massive Get Out The Vote (GOTV) operation and we are looking for volunteers to help us make phone calls and knock on doors in the final 5 days of the campaign.
If you are available to volunteer from Friday, January 15th through January 19thplease click here to fill out the online application. Once the campaign has reviewed your application, someone will contact you with further information.
Please note that the final days of the campaign are the most important and you will be expected to volunteer from 9am-9pm. Only those who are willing and dedicated should apply.
The campaign will provide volunteers who are willing to help with our GOTV efforts, food and lodging for Jan 15th through the 20th (2 volunteers per room).
If you cannot make it but would still like to help, you can make calls from your HOME. Thanks so much for your interest in helping us achieve victory on January 19th.
BOSTON — Martha M. Coakley, the Democrat running for Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, had seemed so certain of winning the special election on Jan. 19 that she barely campaigned last month.
But the dynamic has changed in recent days. The news that two senior Democratic senators will retire this year in the face of bleak re-election prospects has created anxiety and, even in this bluest of states, a sense that the balance of power has shifted dramatically from just a year ago.
With the holidays over and public attention refocused on the race, Ms. Coakley’s insistence on debating her Republican opponent, Scott P. Brown, only with a third-party candidate present has drawn mounting criticism.
And a new poll that showed a competitive race between Ms. Coakley and Mr. Brown has generated buzz on conservative blogs and energized the Brown campaign — though many news organizations dispute its methodology.
In a sudden flurry of activity, the Coakley campaign released its first television advertisement on Thursday and accepted the endorsement of Mr. Kennedy’s widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, at a splashy event outside Boston.
A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support.
But a tighter-than-expected margin in the closely watched race would still prompt soul-searching among Democrats nationally, since the outcome will be the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party will play out in tangible ways at the polls later this year.
“If I had to bet a week’s salary,” said Dennis Hale, a political science professor at Boston College, “I’d still bet it on Coakley. But this is going to be like in the military, where the bullet misses you but it still scares you to death.”
Here is the factor that could affect the whole nation; independent voters.
Republicans are hoping that diminished support for President Obama and his party among independents could give Mr. Brown a shot at winning. About half of the state’s voters are not affiliated with a party.
Nope, America’s isn’t fed up, and we are all just paid astroturfers.
Just keep insulting us by running these progressive lunatics and find out what happens.
(Author’s Note: I have no regrets – I didn’t vote for The Chosen One.)
A little buyer’s remorse? Oh please! You, Jack, are a total punk. You gave up your right to blast the pResident and the democrats when CNN and YOU became the Obama Propaganda Machine during the primary and general elections. You want us to “remember some of this crap when the mid-term elections roll around later this year.” Don’t worry, Jack, we have very long memories; we remember that you were one of the journalists, and I am using that term loosely, that helped ‘make history’, you shill!
Too late Jack, CNN is headed for the bottom because of a MSM complicit in the election of The Chosen One, a lame-a**, marketed candidate and now inept pResident. Happy Trails!!!