SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (68476)1/20/2010 2:29:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Jon Stewart Gets Fed Up: Dems Set The Bar So Low They're Tripping Over It

Published on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 by The Daily Show (via The HuffingtonPost)

Jon Stewart took on the race for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat last night, taking jabs at the Democrats in the process. Upon hearing that Republican candidate Scott Brown was leading the polls, Stewart was dumbfounded that the Kennedy legacy could be lost to "a naked guy who owns a truck."

Confounding him even more were the actions of Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, who has made a series of gaffs in her campaign and few attempts to be likable. After running the down the series of insults she's made to Boston, Stewart jokingly added: "Coakley went into the bar in 'Cheers,' and didn't know anybody's name."

But what irked Stewart the most was the mindset among Democrats that if they lose this seat, they'll lose their chance of passing health care reform. Reaching his breaking point, Stewart detailed the ridiculous logic:

"If this lady loses, the health care reform bill that the beloved late senator considered his legacy, will die. And the reason it will die... is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when did whatever the fuck he wanted to."

After explaining more of the Democrats inability to defeat the Republicans' strategies, he closed, saying:

"It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs."

*Complete Video available at the bottom of this link:

commondreams.org



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (68476)1/20/2010 9:21:43 AM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 149317
 
Here's my take on the whole situation...

If Scott Brown is capable of winning in the bluest of blue states, it means that he marketed himself as a moderate Republican, which is a rebuke of the far right Tea Party. In fact, from his speeches and his TV ads, we know that is exactly what he did.

Could Scott Brown be the center-right candidate that can move the GOP back to the center and thus revive the GOP's national prospects? It's too early to tell, but there's hope yet for the GOP.

Either way, I think the American people have spoken loudly to the Dems. They want less dithering on priorities and more accomplishments. This endless health care debate that has resulted in a watered down mess has knee-capped the Dems. If I were the Dems, I'd shitcan health care and go straight to jobs creation through renewable energy and drilling everywhere and I'd steam roll anyone who got in the way of an up or down vote on it. Success breeds success and health care has been a failure.

Again, the thing I've always admired about the GOP is that if they set their sights on a goal, then they don't pander to their opponents, they simply sweep them out of their way and they achieve that goal come hell or high water. The Dems have shown that they don't have that same backbone. Instead, they pander to every last constituent with carrots instead of whipping out the big stick and telling them their career is over if they don't fall into line. So now they are getting schooled.

Scott Brown is the best thing that could have happened to the Dems. The time for arrogance and complacency is over and now they still have a chance to lead. But will they? I'm still waiting.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (68476)1/20/2010 3:20:44 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Obama Finally Gets His Victory For Bipartisanship

huffingtonpost.com



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (68476)1/20/2010 4:15:07 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
This article is from a guy on a business site and his comments are geared somewhat to stocks but he reflects my feelings nearly 100%. The last thing I want to see in this country is gridlock......to have CA as the model for Washington. It will be this country's undoing. We need competent leadership that focuses on several different issues and insures we remain competitive in the global marketplace while improving the infrastructure and quality of life back home.

Sell the News

By Doug Kass


I fully recognize that the crowd usually outsmarts the remnants and that the momentum in health care stocks and in the overall market has been strong.

The conventional view is that the Massachusetts election result will kill health reform and, thus, is bullish for health care stocks and for the market as a whole, but, for several reasons, I think that the crowd could prove mistaken on this one. I would not be surprised to see both health care stocks and the major market indices sell off over the short term.

A Scott Brown Senate win was growing more likely over the course of the past week. This was not unnoticed by investors in health care stocks; the group has already ripped in anticipation of a Democratic loss, and so have the overall markets lifted.

The health care legislation and reform can't die -- it can be modified -- or the Democratic party will have a problem for a long period of time. Moreover, it is unclear whether the Democratic Senate plurality (of 60 votes) will ultimately be a health care game-changer; it might just be a time out. The Democrats won't go down easily and shouldn't be underestimated. I am fairly certain that last night's defeat will not change the President's agenda, nor will it likely push Obama toward the center or in a major course correction. In fact, the Massachusetts Republican Senate win could conceivably result in administration policy initiatives that are much more punitive toward those who are seen as being privileged relative to the ("oppressed") masses (e.g., banks, brokerages and the wealthy).

The Massachusetts Senatorial race was not necessarily a referendum against the administration's policies (health care being one of them); it's broader than that. The populist uproar is geared toward the incumbent, toward anyone in power. It does not run on party lines, nor is it focused on health care. It is the zeitgeist of dissatisfaction, a sign of the times. Maybe it's a function of high unemployment or the electorate ticked off at the wealthy and the largest institutions (especially of a banking kind). This dissatisfaction was expressed in the Democratic tsunami that brought Obama the Presidency, and it was seen yesterday in the Massachusetts Senatorial election that brought Brown the Senate seat. In other words, the mood of the country has been changing for a while, and it is being reflected in a very negative view toward those who have not suffered from high unemployment or from wayward derivative bets (and still got paid). And, as I have written before, this will lead to policies that are arguably needed but, generally speaking, are valuation deflating.

While I recognize that historically political gridlock is generally seen as a market positive, it might not be this time as the nation needs sound direction and leadership, not legislative inertia. Given the complexity and scope of our country's fiscal problems, obstruction and the perception of continued divisive and partisan political agendas and the lack of an overall governmental community (which could thwart desperately necessary legislative solutions) might quickly be seen as a negative.

In summary, on so many levels, it's different this time.