If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

I’m Glad Democrats Lost Massachusetts

The Liberal Lion has been tea-bagged. At the time of his death, Ted Kennedy was the second most liberal Senator and now he is being replaced by someone who may turn out to be the most conservative Senator. How is that possible?

It’s easy. The Democrats have no balls. President Obama in particular has been a big disappointment. He talks a great game, but when the time comes to take the field and actually play competitively, he just goes into the backroom and makes a deal to throw the game.

Obviously Massachusetts is a state that favors progressive Democrats. So why would the DSCC push a middle of the road Democrat like Martha Coakley? Leadership is a top-down command structure. The fact is that Obama has not led the fight for healthcare reform, economic reform, gay rights, or in withdrawing our military troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before Obama even won the primary I criticized him for wanting make nice with the right wing of the Republican Party. I warned that he would not be successful in sitting down with the Religious Right. But he wasn’t listening. Sometimes compromise is another word for surrender.

Progressive Democrats are sick of this. We don’t want to support someone who promises change and transparency and then makes backroom deals with bankers and the insurance companies. Obama has gained no support from the right wing despite all his efforts and has now lost the support of progressives. The people in the middle respect politicians who will stand up for principles (even principles they don’t agree with).

Republicans have been saying that Democrats have 60 votes and can do whatever they want. However, Democrats have no leadership nor do they have a backbone. As a result, they have tied their hands behind their back and wondered why they couldn’t get anything done. Now we no longer have 60 votes. So now it is time to kick some ass.

It is time to scrap that worthless healthcare bill and write a real health reform bill. It is time to move that bill into reconciliation, which only needs 50 votes and pass the fucker. We don’t need Lieberman and we aren’t going to get Scott Brown.

Let this failure of the Obama Administration be a wake up call to get some balls. So I think it is a great thing that Democrats lost Kennedy’s Senate seat. It means that Democrats no long have an excuse for not getting anything done. The Democrats still have more Senators than Bush ever had and he was able to pass anything he wanted. Funny how that works.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • 1225truth

    Sen. Christian-right Teabagger from MA. HA! HA! HA!

    Democrats have done the Rethuglican-light thing since they took back the Congress after 2006. None of us should have expected any better this past year. This obeisance to corporate power and corporate legal preeminence will solidify a Grand Oil Party resurgent.

    Anyone for President Huckleberry in 2013?

  • X7-X-90

    I personally am tired of the assumption that atheists vote D. Who I sleep with should not dictate my views on taxation, a serious study of economics should. I am about as socially liberal as one can be, not just in my views but lifestyle; yet I have many conservative views on things such as the market and geopolitical questions. I was a hard core member of the left for many years, including service in the government as well as the “progressive” non-profit world. Within these entities I observed just as much ignorant blind adherence to faith based principles, with a different Sky God inserted. To think that the Democrats are our true hope for a secular society is something we need to get over. Some of the best minds I have met are conservative science and business types, with great respect for reasons; not every “right winger” believes in fairy tales.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      The Democrats are fair from perfect as I have pointed out, but the Republican Party has been taken over by the Religious nutjobs. Not all religious people are crazy, but most of the Republican base are fundamentalists. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans actually pay attention to their base. With that in mind, it makes as much sense for an atheist to be a Republican as it does for a Jew to be a Nazi. That doesn’t mean you should be a Democrat.

      • X7-X-90

        You just had to throw the nazis in…I do think by definition all religious people are crazy, just some of them have a good understanding of business, which I always find odd. I dont think most Republicans are fundamentalists; many, yes, although there are plenty who keep their mouths shut about religion and vote purely on tax issues. Not every Republican leader is religious, there are even gays amongst their ranks! Again, I have seen just as much ignorance on the Democratic side, and it would make as much sense for me as an atheistic ethnic-German from Russia to join the Democratic Party as it would to become a Communist (Stalin and the NKVD wiped out much of my ethnic group). I have never been a registered member of any of these groups.

        • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

          X7, you mean to tell me that Sarah Palin would be a serious contender for the Presidency in 2012 if most Republicans weren’t Fundamentalist Christians? McCain is not religious which is one of the main reasons I supported him in 2000. But he picked Palin because he needed to energize the Fundies. If McCain thought he could win without the fundies, he would not have picked her. Have you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reily, Laura Ingram, or any other right wing talking head? They are all ultra-religious or at least pretend to be because they know that is what Republicans want to hear. And then there is Glen Beck.

          Seriously, the Republican Party isn’t about tax issues. It is about religion (period). The Libertarians used to be secular, but now they have become crazier about religion than the Republicans. If Gay marriage is ever going to be legal, it will be because Democrats pushed for it. If science is going to be take precedence over religion in America, it will be because Democrats pushed for it. Republicans are pushing in the opposite direction. I did a blog a few months back on the race to stupidity that the Republican party seems to be having. Here’s the link to that blog entry .

          • http://dogmaticatheist.wordpress.com A-Dizzle

            I think we need to stop equating Republicans with conservatives. There is nothing conservative about today’s republican party. We also have to stop pretending that Democrats actually care about their constituents. Neither party is capable of accomplishing anything meaningful right now, and in fact I fail to see big differences between them aside from heath care. Although I will agree with you that the Republicans are definitely ahead with the race to stupidity and seem to contain more nutjobs then the Democrats.

  • x7-7-x-90

    Yes of course there are many religious people in the Republican party and without a doubt they gave Bush the edge both times. It is also a fact that Rove did a great job of bringing disparate groups together, and if it had only been religious zealots voting he would not have won. Rhetoric is good for politics and winning elections, but science and technology creates wealth. And conservatives need scientists, queers and atheists to do that which they cannot. This is why the Creationist movement never makes it past the high school level; conservatives and industry need science, and they know it.

    They dont have to like us and I dont think they are ever going to gain enough power again to roll back how much freer and diverse we are in the country. To always invoke Nazi atrocities and compare this to our current situation is nothing more than hysterics and insulting to those who have and continue to suffer under state systems of repression.

    You could have saved the insult on right wing radio, I have been listening and calling into such programs for many years, but mostly listen to Christian radio because it cracks me up.

    You choose to live in a black and white world where all conservatives are idiot Sky God worshipers; this is why “progressives” fail, beyond the fact that the movement is bankrupt of pragmatic sustainable implementable ideas. Divisive to the point of defeat. I watch it every election cycle.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      First, I didn’t compare our current situation to Nazi atrocities. I did you the Nazis as an example here, but that wasn’t it.

      I also didn’t say that ALL Republicans were fundie Christians, but most of them are.

      It is also clear that the Republican leadership has been taken over by this lot. If you expect issues that are important atheists like equal rights and issues related to science, don’t expect them from the Republicans. At least the Dems aren’t pushing the opposite way. They are just standing there and doing nothing.

      To claim that the Republican Party hasn’t been taken over by the Religious nut cases is just delusional.

  • x7-x-90

    clearly i am delusional!

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      Really x7? You really think that the Republican Party doesn’t play to their religious right base? I think you know that they do. If Michael Steele came out tomorrow and said that he doesn’t believe in god, he would be hired the next day despite his victories in Virgina, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts. If Rush Limbaugh went on the air and said that he didn’t believe in God, you would loose almost all of his listeners and would be of the air soon afterward. You know that’s true.

      • x7-x-90

        Yes of course there are many religious people in the Republican party and without a doubt they gave Bush the edge both times. It is also a fact that Rove did a great job of bringing disparate groups together, and if it had only been religious zealots voting he would not have won.

        • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

          Yeah, Rove organized the greed people on wall street, the oil lobbies, and the bankers together with the religious fundamentalists. What he didn’t count on was that the religious fundamentalist would almost completely take over the whole Party. Enter Sarah Palin.

          • x7x-90

            hmm, I wonder if you could cram any more evil villain stereotypes into that sentence? conservatives arent people, they are all rich demons who do nothing for anyone but themselves!

            • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

              I said that? I don’t think so. I think maybe you are stereotyping all liberals with that ridiculous bit of paranoia.

              • x7-x-90

                lets see, you use the word greed, implies selfishness…usually when someone names bankers, oil and wall street in the same sentence the implication is these are the villains in our economy or political world. is this not what you believe? and yeah, most run of the mill liberals or democrats are just as uncritical in their regurgitation of rhetoric as your average fundamentalist. of course liberalism in the larger sense is a very diverse collective of often conflicting beliefs, but most “rational discourse” carried out by the party types is the sort of petty arguments i expect from a 101 poli sci class.

                • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

                  I don’t think bankers, oil companies, and health insurance companies have to be greedy, but let’s face facts here… these lobbies have been out for themselves at the expense of the American people. This was the case during the last great depression and it is the case now. That is why we need government regulation to keep them in check. Bush and friends took those regulations away and as a result, they got greedy. Obama has been working behind the scenes to enable that greed. That is a problem. Do I think that it is the cause of our current economic problem? YES! Do I think these people are evil? No, just short sighted. The Republican plan is to do nothing and pray that they regulate themselves. That plan doesn’t appear to be working very well.

  • Jim Lawler

    Thanks for writing this. I am totally disgusted with, not only Obama, but the Democratic Party as well. They are out strictly for themselves; and endlessly kiss the ass of the republicans, the banks, and the religious right. If progressive Democrats cannot steer their party in a beneficial direction, then it may be time for a 3rd party. This would be difficult; but it may be the only viable course left to us.
    I love this blog; keep up the great work!

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      Jim the best thing we can do is vote for Progressives in the primaries and make sure they are held accountable. It was pretty easy to see that Obama wasn’t a progressive during the primary despite his speeches and there Republicans telling us that he was the most liberal Senator. We need to create a second party within the Democratic Party.

  • Steve

    WHAT? I’m sorry this post makes no sense whatsoever. Brown’s supporters came from conservaties and independents, how does that prove Obama is not progressive enough?
    And Obama campaigned on increasing the American presence in Afghanistan, not decreasing it. Also the full American withdrawl from Iraq is proceeding on the schedule Bush negotiated with Iraq, in a responsible way to prevent the country from erupting into chaos again. How does Obama keeping his campaign promises become some sort of betrayal?

  • Bigby

    Your reasoning is deeply flawed. The people of Mass. didn’t vote for Brown because the Dems were too moderate. Did you not even pay attention to the election? The turnout was better than most Mass. gubernatorial elections and Brown won on a campaign that said “we should be spending our money on weapons to fight the terrorists not paying for their lawyers.” He also pledged to be THE VOTE that stopped Obamacare. Does it sound like the reason he won was because Obama has been too militarist or too moderate in pushing health care?

    He won because the Democrats policies are costing jobs and prolonging the recession. Obama should have focused on three things jobs, jobs, and jobs and he should have done it with a more Republican approach to job growth. that’s why (among other things) Kennedy’s seat is now Republican. To take the opposite view is to be an ideologue who is just as dangerous (nay, more so) than the religious nutjobs you’re so terrified of.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      Well shit, I think that the Obama healthcare bill sucks too. That is why this blog is titled that I am glad that the Democrats lost. Now maybe Brown will vote against this bill and we can get a real health reform bill passed through reconciliation. But I have to say that I really don’t think the people of Massachusetts are afraid of getting more terrorist attacks. That’s just silly. Plus, I find it hard to believe that the people of Massachusetts aren’t in favor of the Constitutional right to trial. And more weapons? Really? I guess we have to make more weapons to compete will the guys in caves. They got a lot more nukes than we do… oh wait. Never mind.

  • http://theperplexedobserver.blogspot.com/ TPO

    I agree that Obama has had a less than stellar start but he has accomplished some good things. Just imagine what it would be if a McCain and Palin were in the White House.

    Hopefully the result of the Massachusetts election will wake the Democratic party up to the fact that having just any ole middle of the road Democrat in office is not longer acceptable. It matters what type of Democrat is running for office and if the Obama administration and the DNC don’t figure this out soon we will see many more Republicans winning elections.

    • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

      You are absolutely right TPO. It would be much worse if McCain had won. I like McCain, but the fact is that he was not in control of his campaign and certainly would not be in control of his presidency. While I think Obama was in control of his campaign, I am not so sure he is in control of his presidency. But then again, he has always been an appeaser, so you never know.

      Still, I think Dean should be at least considering running against Obama in a primary. Win or lose, that might force Obama to be more progressive.

  • Scott

    Awesome! I enjoyed this blog!

  • ThePrussian

    Damn straight; when I think what is being done to our brothers and sisters in, say, Darfur by the Janjaweed or in Uganda by the LRA…