Keeping Score: The Massachusetts Senate Race

I will never, ever, ever give my hard-earned money to the incompetents at the corrupt DSCC.
.
Ever.
.
All of my contributions will be either direct to candidates’ campaigns, or through organizations like Act Blue ( link to our best shot at defeating bad Democrats ), who can be trusted with my money.

Oh, and if Brown won, and Presidents Nelson and Lieberman were no longer necessary for a 60-vote super-majority, wouldn’t that leave reconciliation as the sole means of passing health care reform legislation?
.
Wouldn’t that mean potentially better (liberal) health care reform legislation, since the centrist New Democrat minority in the Senate could finally be bypassed with only 51 votes needed?
.
Just thinkin’…

“catastrophic”? Is there anyway you could make a bigger deal out of this?

60 votes with all the Nelsons, Liebermans, Pryors, and Landrieus hasn’t been all that great.

Certainly not good but sheesh calm down.

Yeah, let’s tax banks based on their loans–the cost will be passed along to their borrowers via the loan agreements in place.

Ditto

“Also, if Brown wins, it could be catastrophic for the Obama agenda.”

Obama’s agenda is catastrophic all on its own compounded by the growing stream of lies he has told. That agenda and his lies are the primary reason Brown is surging in the polls.

+++
SZ:

“It would not mean potentially better heath care reform legislation. ”

First of all, calling either bill “reform” is torturing the definition of the word reform. Second, while the reconciliation may provide a short term win, the very act may be the final straw that will blow Democratic majorities in both houses, leaving the last 2 years with plenty of tee time for Obama.

I’m sure many Liberals would love it, but I’d bet the Democratic Leadership – at least Reid and Obama – are scared pantsless by it. At best, it’ll kill any chance of having bipartisanship for the rest of the session, at worst, it’ll damage their reputations even further with the American public and kill their ability to pass any reasonable legislation beyond health care over the course of the next year. It might help Health Care, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for the country.

…or invoke the nuclear option and end the filibuster? Lovely KT would know all of the steps, but I think it’s a “simple” procedure: start filibuster, raise pt. of order, appeal it, and then table the appeal – which can’t be filibustered and if passed would end the filibuster by maj. vote. (Is this correct?) No doubt there’s a catch beside Reid having the stones to do it. I’m confident the R’s can’t win back a majority with their tea party / elite-biz split going on. If you or KT have more info. that would be great.

Not even the most optimistic Republican pollster sees the Republicans taking the Senate.

Realistically, I think it would just mean no further important legislation for at least 3 years. No HCR and another 5 – 10 years of dithering on global warming, among other issues. Our political system is fundamentally broken. (But I’m in the Swamp minority that wants to see the HCR bill pass even in its current watery form.)

Stuart by all means stick to your guns and keep your money in your pocket. But stop telling people who look up to you and foolishly believe that you are knowledgeable on the subject that there is nothing to fear and that this can all be done through reconciliation. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and when it comes to passing legislation you have only a little knowledge. Reconciliation is not a viable means to create the exchanges which is the only mechanism to protect consumers from insurance products that leave them dangerously under insured. The reconciliation process will not provide an avenue to void the practice of pre-existing conditions, or lift lifetime caps and all of the other discriminatory practices that make up rescission. It will not provide a means for preventive care which is the bedrock of reducing health cost over the long term. You keep promoting reconciliation as if its some sort of panacea that will produce all of the good things we want and none of the bad things. Of course, you are sadly mistaken and should stop promoting this alternative as if you are saying something intelligent without telling people that what is left would have to be renewed every five years and without a permanent Democratic majority the uninsured could never count on having benefits. Only someone who has insurance would take this kind of risk with other people’s health care. Let alone the rest of the agenda since we are just barely out of the ditch the GOP has driven us into and they would create endless gridlock so nothing ever gets done again until they are back in power.

Welcome to the club. *”Proudly donating only to ActBlue and individual liberal candidates since 2004″*

4 weeks ago they didn’t think Repubs had a shot at MA seat.

The Demos aren’t done tripping over thier own d**ks yet.

And ten months ago the party was heading toward extinction.

forgottenlord:

I’m sure many Liberals would love it, but I’d bet the Democratic Leadership – at least Reid and Obama – are scared pantsless by it.

I’m sure many liberals and lots and lots of people in general would like a more liberal bill, instead of the centrist abortion we’re getting. Wouldn’t you be happier if we could pass a bill that didn’t force people to buy crappy insurance? Wouldn’t you be happier if the bill were simply about passing consumer protections like anti-rescission and anti-pre-existing conditions exclusions, instead of protecting the current big players from competition? Aren’t those consumer protections basically what was included in the Republican minority’s bill (along with tort “reform” and minor, ineffective tax giveaways)? Republicans are against a national public plan that competes with private insurers, but that’s a popular idea anyway, and the centrist New Democrat bloc took that away from Americans.
.
I think that a huge majority of people would be in favor of that kind of legislation. That would be what they voted for, actually. But that would also be liberal legislation, something the New Democrats are against.
.
You’re right about the Democratic leadership being scared of reconciliation, but I’m not sure that they’re scared of losing 60.

At best, it’ll kill any chance of having bipartisanship for the rest of the session, at worst, it’ll damage their reputations even further with the American public and kill their ability to pass any reasonable legislation beyond health care over the course of the next year.

“Chance of bipartisanship”? There’s no chance of even the appearance of bipartisanship, and nobody outside of the Beltway really cares, as long as things get done.
.
If the American people actually saw some personal, material benefits out of the systems that the Democratic majority put in place, I’d bet they wouldn’t give a crap how those things got there. I’d bet they wouldn’t walk around saying “I just hate this Social Security that allows me to walk around with at least some peace of mind in the event that the market tanks the year before I retire, because it was passed by Democrats and no Republicans…“. That’s just my guess, though, that people want results, not a process.

It might help Health Care, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best thing for the country.

The best thing for the country would have been for liberal Democrats to enact a decent set of reforms as soon as Al Franken was sworn in, instead of dithering around while the jobs situation got worse and worse with that poorly executed stimulus.
.
The best thing for the country would be if policies that help middle class people instead of industry (plus some welfare thrown in) were enacted. The funny thing is, those policies would be wildly popular, and that might actually get Democrats elected.
.
I could be wrong, though.

“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and when it comes to passing legislation you have only a little knowledge.”
.
Through reconciliation, they could expand Medicare eligibility to everyone. Done and done.
.
Physician, heal thyself.

Dee:

But stop telling people who look up to you and foolishly believe that you are knowledgeable on the subject…

LOL.
.
Don’t worry, Dee, there’s nobody like that!

RE: defeating bad democrats
.
I would include in that description so-called progressives who “sign the pledge” to support a position then change their votes and positions once elected, without giving a really plausible reason (or no reason at all).
.
I worry that we are entering a time when politicians at he national/state level see nothing wrong with saying whatever it takes to get elected. Not just R’s but so-called D’s too.

…so much for joining discussions today, oh well.

Free, A majority of the American public is now moving rapidly away from Obama and the Democrats. Remember when they always accused Republicans of catering to special interest? They have taken this catering to a new level beyond human comprehension and they wonder why the American public is not with them.

While the polls show Brown up, let’s remember Hoffman who polls showed 54-38(PPP) and last time I checked he was still accusing ACORN of stealing his nuts. Don’t be Scozzafavved. The majority of Browns money is coming from out of state

That agenda and his lies are the primary reason Brown is surging in the polls.

Interesting that even Freepie can see that Scott Brown is a liar. Of course, the polling surge bit is nonsense, since the Suffolk poll is a poor sampling that understates minorities, the young, and union workers quite dramatically. It’s also poorly balanced in regional terms.
Coakley will win this one, and the MSM will then happily follow the GOP spin about special elections prove that the country doesn’t want all the things that opinion polls say it wants consistently.

I have a question to all the libs in here–how can you possibly support Martha Coakley for anything, let alone US Senate, given her appalling conduct in the Amirault case? Is it just situational ethics? I ask in all seriousness.

Grollican, how can a card-carrying liberal like yourself support Martha Coakley given her opposition to religious freedom (i.e., religious people cannot work in emergency rooms) and her appalling conduct in the Amirault case.

Let me commend my fellow conservatives for “fighting” so bravely against this very important legislative abortion of our Constitution called “Health Care Reform”.
.
Don’t let the liberals shout you down or call you racist or make false statements such as

””You, on the other hand, are confused by some sort of bizarre ideology, and, quite frankly, don’t know what you’re talking about. Your notions of the subject are silly, incomplete and ultimately false.”

.
In their purely hyperbole reaction to comments, they forget that time and time again the truth will prevail. .
.
Seek out the truth, Liberals, it shall set you free!!
.
Thank you!

It is a false equivalency to say that just because I or most of America would be happier with a more Liberal bill doesn’t mean I think it should be done or that it is the better solution. We’ve heard word that the Senior Senator from South Carolina whose name escapes me has offered a fairly reasonable deal to the Democrats on Cap-and-trade – not an ideal deal, but one that doesn’t have such a significant sacrifice of Democratic principles that it couldn’t be worked with. Snowe spent considerable time working with the Democrats on Health Care and they probably could’ve given her a bill she could’ve voted for if it hadn’t become so clear that she’d effectively be the third point on a three way fight between her and Collins, Liberal Democrats and Blue Dogs, of which she brought the fewest guarantees in terms of vote count.
.
It wouldn’t shock me if any further work with these people would get scuttled if the Democrats tried and the risk is that Republicans would take it even further.
.
More importantly, with major issues including Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Cap and Trade, Immigration, Stimulus 2, and Education still in the pipeline, having options available is an absolute necessity.
.
I think it’s an incredibly short sighted gesture to assume that shoving Liberal policies through would be preferable – yes, it is better for this bill, just as overthrowing Iraq might make Iraq more amicable to American interests. Guess what, Iraq might be more amicable but the rest of the world was far less so and Health Care might be better but the rest of the legislation will be far less so.
.
On a side note, if Dee is correct, I’d actually disagree that a Liberal bill through reconciliation would be better.

Defeating bad Democrats- Could you all start with Reid and Pelosi? Ever since they became majority leaders (well, really before that) I’ve always thought that the Democrats, and the country, can do better.
.
Come to think of it, I think we as a country could use a changing of the guard for all the Congressional leaders, both D’s and R’s.
.
As an aside, I can’t help but feel bad for liberals who were expecting solid liberal policy to be coming out of Washington after the ’08 cycle. After GW, I know all too well how it feels to feel betrayed in this way. It’s such a disappointment. And the worst part- neither side is happy.

In all seriousness, any Democrat is better than any Republican, any day since the 1960s.

And in what planet does anyone think that simply allowing everyone into medicare solves the problem of health care cost bankrupting the country. My God we already have millions of baby boomers preparing to enter a system that pays for volume rather than outcomes, now you want to add everyone else before we start making any of the changes to how health care, primary care and preventive care is delivered in this country? Oh yes I get how it appeals to litmus testing progressives who want single-payer or bust. But in reality it does nothing to bring down the cost or to change from a fee for service that medicare is now to paying for outcomes that this bill requires. So much attention has been paid to what the bill doesn’t do that no one is focused on what it offers. Yes, sorry Stuart, it doesn’t punish the insurance industry nearly enough and I get that some people are more interested in making evil corporate doers pay than caring for the sick and vulnerable. When revenge is the goal common sense often flies right out of the window. I’d love to wake up tomorrow and enroll in Medicare, but I have a grandchild and i don’t simply want to pass the buck to her generation to carry this load, I would hate to miss the opportunity to set a foundation for change that with even a little historical perspective no one could deny that this is exactly how all of our greatest social legislation began — imperfect and modest but ultimately providing the ability to create something iconic, including Medicare that we now so readily admire.

I couldn’t agree more, apollyon07.
.
It is indeed time to take out the trash in the Capitol Building.
.
Hopefully electing Scott Brown, the citizens of Massachusetts can start the clean up process. Martha Coakley represents the old politics of Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.
.
It is finally time to elect representatives who will legislate on behalf of the people. Holding fast and steady to the Constitution of the United States. Promoting our freedom, not attempting to take it away from us.
.
Progressivism started in the days of Theodore Rosevelt, a Republican President. It’s time to bury old Teddy for good. It’s time to say no to “Progressive ideals and politics” from both sides of the aisle.

Dee:
.
Yes, sorry Stuart, it doesn’t punish the insurance industry nearly enough
.
Go back and read what I’ve written, so that you can prevent yourself from sounding ridiculous.

In favor of Scott Brown and the tea party? Please, he doesn’t even have the guts to tell people who he really is. Just like the new Republicans governors in New Jersey and Virginia, they are hiding their true agenda and affiliations and telling the people they are these great independents. Of course, the people will end up with these know nothing religious zealots poised to destroy what is left of the country.

wow sw, so you’ll take someone who fought to keep a demonstrably innocent man in prison over any republican?

forgottenlord:
.
It seems as if you may be putting process first, results second.
.
“Scuttling” future work with the moderate members of a rightist, lockstep minority caucus is only to be avoided to the extent that it enacts good policy that helps a majority of Americans, otherwise it’s of no value.
.
I don’t think that, say, legislation allowing bankruptcy courts to modify the principle of home loans for underwater consumers would have meant disaster for a decent policy agenda later, even though it would be over the vocal and unanimous opposition of the Republican minority (and centrist Democrats), because it would have helped people who are losing their homes as the bottom dropped out of the market. When people are actually helped to cope with the wild fluctuations of a market out of their control, they will trust the government responsible for that assistance to act in their interests.
.
I could be wrong, though. Maybe if the Democrats had gotten cram-down through over the obstruction of the GOP and their own centrist members, the American people would have accepted much needed relief and been less enthusiastic about supporting an emissions-lowering or stim 2 agenda.
.
I must confess, that doesn’t make too much sense to me, though.

Actually tstar3 you are wrong.
.

“Hoffman gaining momentum and pulling away to a 41-36 lead over Owens among likely voters. However, the pollsters said many of Scozzafava’s supporters seem to have moved into the “undecided” column, which has increased to 18% — keeping the outcome hard to predict.

.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/ny-23-doug-hoffman-bill-owens-joe-biden.html
.
In hindsight now the 18% made all the difference after Scozzafava came out and endorsed Owens. Much of the 18% went solely to Owens. This determined that race in the end. Even still, Hoffman, a complete unknown just two weeks before the vote, still almost won the election. The final count had him losing by a mere 3,000 votes, with over 10,000 absentee votes to be counted.
.
The last poll conducted was well below 50% for Hoffman. Owens only trailed by 5 points. With Scozzafava’s 18% with other undecided voters included, there was a 13% cushion that no one knew the outcome until the final vote count.

Coakley’s utterly despicable actions during the Amirault alone should be enough to keep her out of public office. Call Brown a liar all you want guys, I’d rather have a liar than someone who would choose to keep an obviously innocent man behind bars…for 18 years.

Completely untethered:

I would hate to miss the opportunity to set a foundation for change that with even a little historical perspective no one could deny that this is exactly how all of our greatest social legislation began — imperfect and modest but ultimately providing the ability to create something iconic, including Medicare that we now so readily admire.

And in what planet does anyone think that simply allowing everyone into medicare solves the problem of health care cost bankrupting the country.

…you’ll take someone who fought to keep a demonstrably innocent man in prison…
.
No spob and neither will I share in your slobbering partisan delusions.

Oh please Dee, tell us who Scott Brown “really is”. I am sure that with your liberal biased insight, it will be very enlightening.
.
Zealots indeed.

While some regulation and taxation is necessary “for the common good”, as Marx said and most liberals believe, “From each according to their abilities. To each according to their need”.

Ah…hyperbole!

spob:
.
sheperdwong is nothing but a big ole Troll. Wave a fake Wizzard of Oz wand at her and she’ll melt like the old wicked Witch of the West that she (or he) is.
.
Begone Troll!! You have no power here!!

#2.2 didn’t go anywhere either. I’m outta here.

It is finally time to elect representatives who will legislate on behalf of the people. Holding fast and steady to the Constitution of the United States. Promoting our freedom, not attempting to take it away from us.

It’s time to say no to “Progressive ideals and politics” from both sides of the aisle.

.
Is this Ridiculous Non Sequitur Day and no one told me?

[...] Keeping Score: The Massachusetts Senate Race – Swampland – TIME.com Item: The DSCC released an ad attacking Scott Brown for his opposition to President Obama’s proposed tax on big banks to repay lost TARP funds. All to be expected, except that one screen shot of the ad showed the World Trade Center in… [...]

Pssssst…you may want to keep your Wizard of Oz references to yourself, they have a way of outting a person. Dorothy.

MS, Why is “I’m getting excited!” from Brown be worth a score of 1.25 from you to Coakley?

Being given hard prison time, and kept in, for something you didn’t do isn’t just wrong- it’s tyranny. It’s mind-blowing to me that anyone could vote for someone like Coakley.

sherperd- there is nothing partisan about my opposition to Coakley. She did one of the worst things, to me, that someone in authority can do- intentionally keeping an innocent man in prison. Remember what happened to that SOB prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case? He was disbarred. You can’t defend that. I don’t know much about Brown, but as long as he hasn’t committed an egregious act like that, the choice seems pretty easy.
.
To Brown supporters I would offer this advice- anytime a Coakley supporter says anything negative about Brown, just reply with, “Amirault”. If they try to defend it, this would provide for some humor, as what she did really is indefensible.

If you have not yet guessed, these numbers don’t really mean much of anything.
.
Michael? Next time, please put that sentence at the top of your post so I know to ignore everything afterwards.

newfreedom- I agree with your sentiment, but I have to take issue with what you said about T. Roosevelt. IMO he is one of the best presidents of all time, he accomplished so much, which is even more impressive given that he didn’t have 8 years in which to do it. His square deal was considered progressive, what it did was just give an even shake to different groups of society, especially between businesses and citizens. Nothing wrong with everyone getting a fair chance.
.
Freedom > forced equality

Besides, who’s to say that if they lose one vote, that they won’t just find another senator to bribe? When votes are so easily bought, one vote isn’t much to worry about.

Coakley’s point was that if your beliefs prevent you from fulfilling your duties, it would be better not to take a job that requires you to execute said duties. It’s an elementary point that you seem to have missed, as usual.
As for Amirault, the evidence remains unclear to this day.

Of course, your candidate voted against giving financial aid to 9/11 workers. But I imagine after Bush/Cheney you see no need to behave like an American or a patriot. Doubtless you’ll vote for Scott Brown despite his despicable abuse of American heroes.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/scott-brown-voted-against-giving-help-to-911-recovery-workers/

I can’t help but feel bad for liberals who were expecting solid liberal policy to be coming out of Washington after the ’08 cycle. After GW, I know all too well how it feels to feel betrayed in this way. It’s such a disappointment. And the worst part- neither side is happy.

How right you are.
.
We were lied to. So were you.
.
Remember when David Brooks wrote that column “Reviving the Hamiltonian Agenda” ( link to the cretin Brooks ) in which he argued for Big Government Conservatism?

We Hamiltonians disagree with the limited government conservatives because, on its own, the market is failing to supply enough human capital.

What the crap is he talking about?
.
I remember thinking to myself, “He’s really apologizing for Bush’s big government borrowing and spending? And he calls himself a conservative? If they’re that far down the path of denial, then they’re really in for it.”
.
Yep. Betrayal….Good times.

Yes, perhaps you are correct and I may have unjustly categorized Teddy as a mere 2010 Progressive. I am sure he would roll in his grave a the thought.
.
But, tracking back through history, one can definately begin “Progressivism” with his Administration. All the die hard tree huggers I am sure would agree with me.
.
I am also not totally against any progressive ideas, but at the same time I remain very protective of what I call our basic, unalienable rights.
.
Once you tread down the road of progressivism, soon you shall also find that many if not all rights we have are up for grabs. Look at FISA as an example. A Republican born, progressive idea. It is indeed very threatening to those basic rights. That is why it is so important to elect those who will defend those rights above all else. Otherwise, we may as well live under a tyranical leader such as King George III.
.
Other progressives within the Republican Party currently can be identified as John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Republican by mere threads in name only. But, progressive to the core. The only thing that John McCain has in common with Ronald Reagan is his conservative views on taxation and spending, otherwise he might as well be a Barack Obama advisor.

“sherperd- there is nothing partisan about my opposition to Coakley.”
.
That’s funny because everything else about you is completely, dependably, mindlessly partisan. Not that there’s anything wrong with partisanship, just the mindless variety.

The evidence is still unclear? You cannot be serious. Mass. liberals should just admit that what she did was wrong and then try to run on the issues- at least that’s what I would do.
.
Though I guess you could say that the evidence “remains unclear” in the sense that the evidence was “unclear” in the O.J. Simpson case.
.
So Brown voted against that bill, the one that would’ve given benefits to 9/11 heroes? Wow that is bad. I’m not too interested in this race (though I’d rather not a person like Coakley be in the Senate), and I don’t know too much about Brown so I’ll take your word for it.
.
If this is going to be a back-and-forth with them two, which would you then say is worse? Not voting for a bill that would give benefits? Or actively working (ie, not merely voting) to keep an innocent man in prison for 18 years?

Speaking of Franken, if Brown is elected the dems should see to it that he is seated just as quickly as Franken was.

sheperd- really? I would bet that 90% of the posters on here who have read what I’ve said since I started posting on here would strongly disagree with that characterization of me. I’ve said numerous times that I dislike BOTH the D’s and R’s, I routinely slam GW on here, and have in general said just as many negative things about both parties. In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that I voted for a Republican in 2008- Ron Paul! Oh wait he’s basically an independent. My friends IRL would laugh at the notion that I’m mindlessly partisan.
.
Also, if you’re going to say that I’m “completely, dependably, mindlessly partisan”, you probably shouldn’t do it on a blog post where I’ve made a very non-partisan comment (post #8). Sorry if I seem angry, I’m really not, I just think what you said is untrue and had to correct it.

Dee,
-
‘And in what planet does anyone think that simply allowing everyone into medicare solves the problem of health care cost bankrupting the country.”
-
The Medicare plan was to allow people to buy in to the program at age 55; it wasn’t a give away. There are uninsured people who can afford to buy insurance, if it’s available and affordable. The adminstrative costs on Medicare a low, and the system is already up and running. I don’t understand how me paying for my health insurance through Medicare affects your taxes or your grandaughter’s future. .

OK, apollyon07, I apologize and stand corrected. Independents are definitely not mindless partisans so I take back the partisan part.

It feels as though some on the left have just now realized that the Democrats are part of the Establishment, and have concluded that, therefore, f##k ‘em all, there is no difference between the two major parties. To me, that’s like saying, “I caught the flu, so I may as well expose myself to smallpox.”

I’m not thrilled by the Democrats, and if there were any sane people in the opposition party, I wouldn’t care as much about 60 seats (really 59).

Put it another way: Are there really liberals/progressives here who think that Coakley, whatever her deficiencies, is not preferable to Scott Brown?

But mostly I want to be able to purchase health insurance if I ever lose a job before I’m 62. Saying “Oh, well, they’ll just do it reconciliation” seems naive.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021946.php
Another compassionate conservative, voted against assistance for Red Cross workers who assisted on 9/11. link above
Does not pay his campaign staff health insurance. Hires contract workers.

To grollican and all the other libs that support the election of Coakley with either knowledge of, or willful blindness to, her utterly despicable actions in the Amirault case, don’t ever try to take the moral high ground again in a political debate. Coakley’s actions are disqualifying, and tossing around bs like grollican does with respect to a conflict in the evidence etc. is beneath contempt. You don’t care about morality. Just victory. That’s cool, but stop the lectures.

[...] Read more on Time Magazine [...]

I have a feeling that MS wrote a frivolous column precisely to elicit the sort of over-reaction in evidence here. In the unlikely case that Coakley loses this election, the voters in Massachusetts (and by extension, those in the country at large) will get the representation and policies that they clearly deserve.

“Interesting that even Freepie can see that Scott Brown is a liar.”

You ability to understand polls is only exceeded by you ability to read. The left and Obama have been telling lie after lie and the bill is coming due.

Stick to name calling it what you do best.

Well, I’ll just declare victory here. ha ha

Accepted and thank you, no hard feelings.

Do not no where all these comments are coming from, but I live in Mississippi. I retired from the US Army after serving 21 years. I served during the Vietnam era. I served in Europe three times and once in Korea. I served my country proudly. I spent another 21 years in the Dept of the Army as a civilian. I love my country. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. I vote for what I feel is right for the American way of life. My feelings are this country is headed completely in the wrong direction. The people of this country are not running OUR COUNTRY, the politicians are running OUR COUNTRY, and they do not care what we think. There is 435 House of Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress. That totals out to be 535 persons and 1 President, for a total of 536. Those 536 People are trying to establish our way of life, they KNOW MORE THAN WE KNOW, HOW WE WANT TO LIVE. I am not saying that all 536 are wrong. The House and Senate Democrats have a majority and can pass a bill for the President to sign. Over the last nine years I have listened to the Newspapers, and most TV News, and Congress, belittle George W. Bush, for all our problems. Well let me tell your people of the United States, George Bush did not pass anything. He only signed what 535 Senators and House of Representatives approved. Since 2006 the Democrats have been in Power in both the House and Senate, and what did they accomplish. The problems with the Housing Market started during Bill CLinton’s Administration. Right now you can see the ones bailing out of reelection, Chris Dodd, and Dorgan.because they know they did wrong. Look at the sweet deal made my Ben Nelson, for his vote and now he wants to have it taken out of health reform, Why because he went back to Nebraska, and the Governor and the people, said we don’t want it, unless all the states get it. They are getting out, but guess what their retirement pay is going to be. And we the American Taxpayer will pay it. So It is time to tell the 536 people that this is our country and you need to listen to US!!!!