Black Conservatives Comment on Brown Victory in Massachusetts

Errr... I would post this in one of the larger forums but I have a feeling that not only would it fly over people's heads but that somehow even THIS could be used to bash Obama.

"Black Conservatives Comment on Brown Victory in Massachusetts"

Black conservatives affiliated with the Project 21 leadership network are speaking out about the stunning victory of Republican state senator Scott Brown over Democrat state attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

Choice Snips:

Kevin L. Martin: "Scott Brown's victory in the bluest of traditionally blue states can only be viewed as a complete loss of confidence in the policies of the Obama White House and its allies in Congress. People have tasted the fruits of a government dominated by liberal ideologues and they've not found it to their liking. What remains to be seen is if this repudiation has been heard and understood."

Horace Cooper: "Yesterday's victory by State Senator Brown is reminiscent of the upset off-year elections of 1994. Then, the Democrats could have seen the results for what they were - a repudiation of big government liberalism - but they refused."

Yes, my friends -- four of the nine black conservatives in America have spoken. :sarcasm:

Seriously, this flies in the fact of the conventional DU "wisdom" of "Coakley lost because the Dems are not LIBERAL ENOUGH" and, of course "it's Obama's fault!" so I don't think it would go all that well out in the big forums. This whole Brown/Coakley/Massachusetts situation is godawful any damn way that you look at it, but this idea that a country that put Bush in office TWICE, and has large quantities of citizens who scream bloody murder at the THOUGHT of providing universal healthcare for its citizens (not to mention wanting to round up Hispanics and Muslims and ship them "somewhere else") is somehow rejecting Obama and the Dems because they are not "liberal enough" makes me want to scream.

This has weighed heavily on me, and not only am I not even in America right now but I am from nowhere near Massachusetts. And this is STILL bothering me.

The populist anger that put Obama in the White House is being channeled by teabaggers! It makes me dry heave to think about it, because we all know what the root of the teabagger issue with Obama is.

Is what's good for the Democratic Party what's good for America?? This country has proven time and time again to be far more conservative than liberal, so if the Dems shift to the left in order to appease liberals, we all know what the response from America will be -- they will continue to get their asses handed to them. The problem is that if Obama shifts further to the center or even the right, then this small but painfully loud group of "progressives" will continue to hound him and we all know these folks have no problems finding a microphone or a web site to bray in front of. The bickering between Obama and the left will continue to weaken him. Don't think for a milisecond that Repubs are not LOVING what they're seeing in the liberal blogosphere and other places right now.

I honestly don't know what can be done right now to change things. Even knowing and understanding that these types of election results are typical in an mid-term or "off" year doesn't make me feel much better. I do think dramatically highlighting the policy differences between the Dems and Repubs is a good start, and the Dems need to inform folks that the Republicans are still the champions of rich, fat cats -- now more than ever (although Lord knows the Dems have always suckled from the "teat of power" as well).

Just musing out loud... I'm really quite bothered by the MA results.

it really doesn't matter what he does. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Republicans are going to lie on him anyway. So, from where I sit, he might as well go for it and stop obsessing over bipartisanship. Put the Public Option back in the bill WITH OR WITHOUT THEM. Period. Beyond HCR he probably won't get anything else passed, anyway. But at least, he can go down in history as the only President who managed to do it.

Lord, I do not envy that man. There is not enough money in the world to endure what he's going through.

Edit: The thing that gets me though is that if Obama does shift to the left for the liberals, when he goes down in flames in 2012, it will be the very people now screaming for him to "move further to the left" who will scream that the Democrats put up a "weak" candidate who was "destined to lose" the way that they did with John Kerry, with Al Gore, with Jimmy Carter, with EVERYBODY.

It's a wonder that anyone is the slightest bit interested in trying to represent the Democratic party.

anyway. Republicans don't respect him. They think he's weak and so do progressives. So, what difference does it make? Yeah, be like bush but for entirely different reasons. Not because he's a natural born asshole but because this is the ONLY way a black man in office is going to get ANYTHING accomplished. That's been proven repeatedly over the course of this year. They are going to fight him tooth and nail on EVERYTHING! At least, get the HCR bill before he leaves office, come hell or high water.

If they're going to hate you anyway there's no need to try to get them on your side. The Republicans never had any intention of voting for HCR yet concession, after concession was made to appease these asshats. The Blue dogs? Send them to hell, threaten to cut off their funding cut off their pork and fund a primary opponent if you have to do so to get them in line but do so. Coddling LIEberman? Screw him, if he votes the wrong way take away his chairmanships. Better to do what the hell you want and to hell with them. People will more respect that you did what you thought was right and possibly fail then compromise the hell out of what you want to the point that whatever has passed has very little if any resemblance to what you wanted in the first place.

Politics does not work that way. The Blue Dogs were elected just as Obama was. They (unfortunately or not) represent their districts and the sentiments of their constituents. And because of the procedural constraints of the House and Senate, the "coddling" that you mention of certain politicians has to be done. It ain't right. It damn sure ain't pretty but that's how it goes now. I'm all for changing this, by the way, and would support anyone who wants to.

Better to do what the hell you want and to hell with them.

Isn't that the EXACT SAME PROBLEM that everyone had with Bush?? I mean, girl you should have heard the things the entire world said about that man. He was reviled and now some are saying they want Obama to do the same thing?? Bush was as wrong as two left shoes and I personally did not respect him in the least, let alone admire his ability to steamroll his craven stupidity through Congress. I thought his (Dem) opposition was pathetic and pitiful to let him get away with what he got away with.

I do think the Dems have compromised FAR too much on health care but that may be changing soon. The one thing I do know is I sure as HELL do not want Obama to be like Bush in any way.

to actually change parties. And a good number of them are actually screwing over their constituencies in the process. Indiana has been hard hit by foreclosures but Evan Blah, running on his father's good name because his own record is horrendous in comparison, actually actively works to make banking bills less strong in favor of banks. His wife makes her money from the Health insurance companies. Something like 70% of all people regardless of party affiliation want some kind of public option and people like Nelson are actively blocking even that. This is possibly a reason why the Republican won in MA on Tuesday. The people aren't seeing enough of the change they want. And while it can't all be done with the snap of a finger, there has to be some movement and the HCR (more like health insurance profits protection act but I digress) did not show enough movement.

The removal of "preexisting conditions" (which frankly can be done without a health reform package anyway and worse doesn't take effect immediately and leaves a giant loophole you can drive an ambulance through anyway. Why should insurance companies be able to drop anyone for any reason. If they have to care for everyone what their past medical history is doesn't matter. So why leave in this loophole which I'm sure the insurance companies have already figured out how to get around but I digress) and the removal of the ability of insurance companies to drop people if they get sick (Again something that doesn't and ought not be tied to a "reform" package in the first place) isn't enough movement for people when they see they'll have to buy insurance from the very companies that cause them problems with their outrageous prices and penchant for weaseling out of paying after taking your money for years without having to pay out in the first place.

Let's not forget how they changed things in committee just to get Olympia Snowe to vote it out of committee when they didn't need her vote for that, only to have her turn around and say that she wouldn't vote for it on the floor. And surprise surprise when it went to the floor she voted no. Meanwhile the insurance company out there it actually trying to take the state (Maine) to court because they want to jack up their rates further and the state board said "no."

Then there's the problem with the bank, the banks took trillions in taxpayer dollars, and what did we get preferred stock? Preferred stock may get their dividends (if there are any paid and there's nothing to say that they have to be paid) but they have no vote. Which means basically we gave them a whole heaping pile of money and don't have any say in how it's spent. The best time to get regulations on the banks was when they were hitting us up for money. NOw that they've taken our money, gambled with it in speculative ventures while not lending it out, made huge profits (because they're getting money from the Fed at 0% interest and they damn sure aren't paying that on a savings account and when they do actually bother to lend it out they're not dropping their rates that low)and have 1.4 billion dollars to throw around in bonuses they're not going to be at all inclined to accept any new regulations and now thanks to our corporatist Supreme court they can take that money and throw large sums of it into advertising for candidates who toe the line (or conversely against candidates who don't.)

Admittedly they passed some reform on credit cards (but then allowed months to pass between passage and when the law goes into affect which gave the credit card companies time to jack up their rates. Oh and lets' not forget the newest card that came out with a 79% apr which is legal because the law hadn't kicked in yet.)

Yes they've extended unemployment a couple of times, yes they passed a stimulus (which I'll refrain from noting how it was watered down due to help from the blue dogs) but the problem is most people don't pay all that much attention to the day to day. Their attitude can be easily summed up by a Janet Jackson song. "What have you done for me lately?"

And even worse, the public will vote for someone who will appear to stand their ground even if that person is WRONG rather than vote for the person who is right and seems weak and the way the president has been dealing with both the Republicans and the blue dogs makes him look weak. In addition, while the idea of ramming legislation down the throats of the recalcitrant and obstructionist may be an anathema, I don't see any other way to deal with a group of people whose only answer to anything and everything is "no." Bipartisanship has been tried and it was painfully obvious very early in 2009 that that wasn't going to work at all. So we have to be willing to do what it takes to actually get the change that was voted for otherwise it is likely that Tuesday will not be the only loss we're lamenting this year.

But I refuse to believe that anyone in Massachusetts or anywhere else is so stupid that because the Democrats are not moving far enough in a "progressive" direction that they would vote into office a man who denies the effects of climate change and is a doggone TEABAGGER.

Are people's memories really that bad?? Are they this confused?? "I want the Dems to take ten steps forward but because they only took 3, I'm going to vote for someone who will actually take us 47 steps BACKWARDS?" My understanding of the vote is that it wasn't even liberals who decided the race -- it was the same group of folks that people such as myself and a few others have been trying to impress on everyone else that they are the REAL deciders of state and national elections -- the independents and moderates. If you don't have these people, you have NOTHING and Ms. Martha obviously didn't have these people. She knew that she'd have the liberals because there's no way that Mass Dems would let Teddy's seat go to a repub, but she forgot about the millions of people in the center who make or break candidates and their campaigns every single day.

(Someone also posted an interesting read here about her lack of response to black people in Mass too. She sounded like she was just a total mess as a candidate.)

I completely agree that the Blue Dogs make the Dems look weak, but I think that "liberals" screaming for Obama's head on a platter after EVERY DAMN MOVE HE MAKES do the same thing. I also agree with you to an extent that Obama's commitment to bi-partisanship has cost him and I do believe that it will probably lessen after this, but anyone who thinks that the loss in Massachusetts will help liberals or liberal causes, well... let's just say I got a nice bridge to sell you:

I'm letting it go for only $50 million USD. Cash Only!! :)

We're already seeing the results of the Mass race. The watered down health plan is going to be watered down even further! I would have loved to have seen greater bi-partisanship in Congress and in DC. But the special interests are so entrenched that it seems damn near impossible and I think that we will see the Dems respond more forcefully in the future. The question now is, how will this affect the progressive agenda? THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS NOT LIBERAL. If the Dems insist on furthering a liberal agenda that many Americans disagree with, they will continue to vote Dems out of office which will further endanger the very agenda that the Dems are trying to pass! THIS is why Obama tries negotiation after negotiation after negotiation -- he understands this. It may make him look "weak" in the eyes of some, but he has been phenomenally successful in getting his legislative agenda passed which makes him look smart and capable as hell to me. I would like to see him and the Dems fight harder on things, but I understand that being unyielding and getting nowhere is far worse than compromise.

By the way, really glad to see you posting in AAIG again, Rainey. I've missed you! :)

Unfortunately, there's a poll that says that people are just that stupid.

http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/mapollresults/?action_id=2765777&akid=.390508.SNqFt3&source=frontpage

I'm not sure how much hope I am holding out right now. The Supreme just sold out democracy to the corporations. I don't think that our government will even pretend to listen to the people anymore. Why would they when corporations can buy ads from the time a candidate announces he or she is running to election day. And as much as I'd like to blame Bush for this mess because of the last to asshat (in)justices he appointed, the Democrats have to take some blame for this as well. They could have filibustered when Alito or Roberts were nominated and they sat on their hands and did nothing. "Oh we'll vote for cloture then vote no." They don't use the filibuster when they can use it and when faced with it they're too chicken to make the Republicans do it. This needs to change. I hope like hell they stop listening to LIEberman (who is on the shit list of 2/3 of people polled in CT) and start doing the right things.

In the meantime I think it's time I figured how to learn French at home.

I'm only taking one class during the winter module. I'll be back to hibernating in March when the spring semester starts. I'm getting closer to that Associates and I'm starting to prepare to transfer to get my Bachelor's.

are two major contributors as to why I'm an independent. :)

Good luck with your degree! You almost make me miss school until I start to remember how time-consuming and what a big pain in the butt it can be. (Yeah, I say that now but in a year, I'll probably be in somebody's school getting ANOTHER damned degree that will look good on the resume but be dang near worthless in real life.) :)

is because if I did register as an independent I'd have no say in anything that goes on in the state. Our primaries are closed and often whoever wins the primaries wins the election. If we had open primaries I'd drop any party affiliation in a heartbeat.

there are two things without limit: the Universe--and human stupidity. :freak:

there's nothing original there. It's not even their own thoughts, they're reading the script. :eyes:

Like said above, and it's sad, but the populist anger is lead by the RW rabid teabaggers! Everyone here knows what's behind that. Even Clinton and Bush*, who would have started a revolution if his sorry ass wasn't saved by the Sept. 11 incident, didn't have to deal with "teabaggers".

president since FDR, has had to deal with this kind of anger and outrage and jackass was saved by the bell.

("folks are rejecting liberal ideology") makes about 157,000,000% more sense than "liberals" screaming "we lost in Massachusetts because Coakley wasn't LIBERAL ENOUGH!!one!"

That type of thinking is so confused, irrational, and devoid of even basic common sense that it makes my head hurt and stomach clench just trying to process it.