Politico Poll: Brown 52, Coakley 43, Kennedy 2

Lalo35adm

January 18, 2010 4:59 PM

Yeah he is, like Obama was in New Hampshire.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

eratosthenes8

January 18, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to Lalo35adm

Why the wishful thinking? What purpose does it serve?

There is nothing even remotely similar about the predictions of an Obama victory in New Hampshire and predictions of a Brown win in the Massachusetts Senate race.

Nothing.

As I said in another thread, if Coakley manages to eke out a win, I will be happily surprised...but, I will be very surprised.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Weeferdog

January 18, 2010 5:01 PM

I'm not even nervous anmymore. This thing is over. What a freaking disaster. It's almost biblically horrific. We have to eat shit from people like the idiot trolls who will soon weigh in here; HCR is dead; Obama is a lame duck one year to the day after his inauguration.

Nice job, Massachusetts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SpiderPig

January 18, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to Weeferdog

Yup. Put a fork in her. She's done. Ahhhh, Complacency, you've done your work well once again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CT Voter

January 18, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to Weeferdog

Take a deep breath, will you?

Yes, it looks grisly right now, but if you throw up your hands before the fucking election, what's the point of having an election?

Remember how invincible Obama appeared right before the NH election?

I hope we get a replay of that tomorrow. If we don't, well, the rest of the year is going to be tough. But let's wait for that until tomorrow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kash79

January 18, 2010 5:04 PM

This is bad...I'm with Weeferdo...this thing is big to look like its over.

Repost.

I've been so bothered by the worsening Coakely news- I have been trying to keep away from any political news, just to avoid depression. Every day, since past few weeks,reading on the MA-Senate race has been like watching Titanic on a slow but sure collision course track with the giant iceberg.

I hear, Martha went the Hillary '08 way- her campaign projecting her as a inevitable winner, fully ignoring Scott Brown until the bagger crowd gathered storm and showered torrential rainfall from the left field. Now she's in running for cover. How incompetent can one be to find yourself loosing Ted Kennedy's seat from MA to the bagger movement? and How Ironical it is that Ted Kennedy's seat may determine the fate of HC?

If Dems cannot win in MA, I just cannot imagine the slaughter we will witness in the midterms.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rb6

January 18, 2010 5:09 PM

Honestly, not to point the finger of chauvinism too much, but Oh I don't know, look at Kathleen Kennedy Townsend in Maryland. Maryland is just as D as Massachusetts, but her campaign was dreadful.

Nonetheless, I don't give a great deal of validity to most of these polls -- polling states is tricky, polling special elections is tricky, etc. Which is not to say I am confident, I just don't know what to think.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CT Voter

January 18, 2010 5:11 PM

This just in: Survey USA has a poll out showing Brown up by 110%.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex39

January 18, 2010 5:28 PM

It truly is troubling. I'm not sure I've been this anxious since Nov, 2004.

But it's not over till it's over, and all that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Sailormarlowe

January 18, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to Alex39

That right. Votes ain't counted. But, libs always holler before they hurt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bdh

January 18, 2010 5:35 PM

All my optimism from that historic day when Arlen Specter switched parties is gone. Now the world looks as dark as it did back on the night when Obama won the presidency.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rb6

January 18, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to bdh

Look, stop accepting the ground rules. I use this example sometimes -- when I was a girl scout we played this stupid game called blanket, where an uninitiated girl got down on the floor under the blanket and everyone sat around in a circle and encouraged her to take something off that was making her hot. You would not believe how many girls stripped themselves bare before it occurred to them that it was the stupid blanket they were supposed to take off. The filibuster is the blanket. If Dems are too stupid to take it off then every election is going to be this high stakes drama. A 60 Senator majority is simply not a long-term strategy, and it's not even as if there is no precedent for limiting the use of the filibuster. This is completely nuts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bdh

January 18, 2010 5:57 PM in reply to rb6

I was being facetious. Regardless of opinions about ways of dealing with Senate dysfunction, it's worth keeping in mind that we never expected a 60-40 majority to materialize, at least not without another election cycle. If Brown wins, it's definitely a turn for the worse, and arguably indicates a trend that needs to be addressed as much as possible before the November elections. And with HCR in the ninth inning and this being Kennedy's seat, etc., the optics are certifiably terrible. A Brown win would definitely be a bad thing. But the world will not end. Democrats still have the White House and majorities in both houses. I even remember many arguing last year before Specter and Franken that a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate could be a liability because of the expectations it would create. There will be ups and downs over the next few years. That's not an argument for renewed complacency in this special election. But we shouldn't hyperventilate too much if this goes the wrong way. (And of course Coakley hasn't lost yet. Cart, horse, etc.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bdh

January 18, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to rb6

And, btw, I agree completely that maintaining a 60-vote majority in the Senate is an unsustainable strategy, if I wasn't clear about that. The apparent stakes of this special election are symptomatic of that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex39

January 18, 2010 5:37 PM

Here's something to cheer us all up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ&feature=related

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

scottatrw

January 18, 2010 5:49 PM

Coakley absolutely correct about the Taliban no longer being in Afghanistan...as they attack Kabul. BTW, Martha...Kabul is in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtO2s8R6Hqc

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

January 18, 2010 9:07 PM in reply to scottatrw

Actually she didn't say that. What you're doing is quoting "Pro-Torture" Brown's distortion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dimitry

January 18, 2010 5:59 PM

Buck up people! Let us vote tomorrow, then lets talk mass suicide. The weather promises to be dreadful, so the finicky independents are unlikely to be out in large numbers. Wait, I am a independent...

I am convinced large numbers of Coakley voters are being undercounted in phone polling - around here nobody picks up the phone from unknown numbers.

That said, Coakley is a VERY flawed candidate...

Can we have a good Senator candidate next election cycle, please?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeromeoneil

January 18, 2010 6:03 PM

This is simply a rejection of the Obama corporate rollover agenda. They're going to replace Ted Kennedy with a Republican, because the Democratic plan was simply Republican light. More money for corps, paid for by the sweat of working people.

Anyone that is shocked this happened didn't pay attention to what went on during the presidential campaign, or if they did, quit paying attention to what the President stood for once elected.

This is a rebuke, pure and simple.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation

January 18, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to jeromeoneil

Yeah right, the voters reject the Dems because they are Repub-lite, so they vote Repub?
Do you have any more of that weed you're smoking?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeromeoneil

January 18, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation

People would rather get screwed by a crook who is telling you he's going to screw you. The Republicans are at least honest about their corporate agenda.

How long did it take Obama to go from "Yes We Can!" to "We have to do what it politically achievable?" You can measure it in days.

You guys can continue yo pretend that this is all some large conspiracy, or that Coakley just ran a bad campaign, and if it helps you sleep at night, great. But the failure of the President to lead on his first important issue is what did this.

He got elected to stand up for the average guy, and in the end, he sat behind his desk in his suit and tie handing out checks to billionaires, just like every other corporate lackey that preceded him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

carlosbas

January 18, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to jeromeoneil

Do you know what you are talking about or just plain repeating lines? The guy did what needed to be done in order to save the financial system from meltdown. We didn't elect Leon Trotsky, you know. It's partially because of this senseless rethoric that we are being wacked up, talk about ways of sucking off Democrat's enthusiasm and doing the work for Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

eratosthenes8

January 18, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation

That, in essence, was the Republican explanation for why the voters rejected the GOP in 2006. Are you now admitting that the Republican explanation was just B.S. talking-point spin?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeromeoneil

January 18, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to eratosthenes8

The GOP got tossed as a result of six years of George Bush's incompetence at everything.

The movement of independent voters in this poll is what tells the story. They voted for change, they got the same old crap, so they're firing the new guy, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dimitry

January 18, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to jeromeoneil

I think this is poor analysis. It is illogical to reject Obama "corporate rollover agenda" by voting for a corporate stooge as your Senator.

A better hypothesis, in my view, is middle class buyer remorse on Obama. Everybody hated Bush, so they rushed to the "maximum change" candidate. Once the Republican smear machine has finally clicked into gear (it was in kine of sputtering or neutral under McCain), they were finally able to convince large chunks of the population that Obama really is a terrorist-loving, communist-supporting, black radical, hell-bent on clearing their wallets in order to give it to you know who.

In other words, the rare moment of American racialist enlightenment has passed and the country is quickly descending into our "normal" state of racialism and paranoia of "left-wing" takeover of our revered free market institutions, such as Medicare.

Republicans know, that they can't allow the new administration any actual accomplishments that would be felt by the middle class, which would release the deep seated apprehensions that they have worked hard to build up in the last year. Obama must fail in order for the Republican to keep scaring the country with the old "communist" nonsense.

So, sadly, this Senatorial campaign is key to their success. If they can deny the HCR legislation (flawed as it is), they can reinforce the faux populist narrative they have build up for themselves and continue to paint Obama and democrats as the "tax and spend" party, but this time tainted by terrorist-loving, commie meme.

They never have to use the race card - in America it is in the elephant behind the curtain - everyone knows it is there, subtle code words is all that is required to scare the middle class whites shitless every time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeromeoneil

January 18, 2010 6:30 PM in reply to dimitry

Oh I see. Your theory is that Americans aren't smart enough to realize what a great deal this healthcare plan is, seeing how it does nothing but subsidize the most expensive system in the world with taxes generated off of middle class folks, and forces them to buy from that same market?

Instead, we're just a bunch of racists that woke up after the party and said "We elected who?"

That's your theory? Really?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dimitry

January 18, 2010 6:45 PM in reply to jeromeoneil

Well, no I think Americans are desperately stupid. INSTEAD of being outraged that the health care reform has been sabotaged by corporate interests, they have been convinced by tea party freaks that it has been "taken over" by "commie Obama government".

And part of the meme is, of coarse, Obama's skin color and the 60s culture wars.

The "buyer's remorse" is from a completely different angle for most Americans than for the tiny minority of actual liberals left in the country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dimitry

January 18, 2010 6:49 PM in reply to dimitry

And, most of the country appears to be in advanced form of amnesia/senility. Popular political history has a maximum duration of about a year, probably less.

Most Americans really can't remember anything that happened politically more than a year ago. Heck most people would have a really hard time naming just a few people in any President's cabinet, or explain what is in health care reform.

Very uneducated and politically amnesiac population living in a highly complex society facing a long list of critical problems equals schizoid political bouncing at the whim of every clever populist movement available. Madison must be rolling in his grave!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeromeoneil

January 18, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to dimitry

Ah I see. Well, in that case, this is just an honest disagreement. You think it failed because it was too socialist, and I think it failed because it wasn't socialist enough.

Either way, the Democrats are going to pay the price for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dimitry

January 18, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to jeromeoneil

No, read again. It all about false perceptions in a low-information, low-education voter.

Once again, democrats underestimated the power of the republican smear/misinformation machine.

Republicans have successfully defined Obama, a milque-toast centrist, as a next incarnation of Mao, a black radical commie usurper, a death-panelist authoritarian redistributionist. Democrats, as always, are left standing with shit all over them, asking each other "what happened"?

The last democrat who could actually fight them was FDR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wbgonne

January 19, 2010 7:37 AM in reply to dimitry

Excellent analysis. Sad but true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

heir ball

January 18, 2010 6:28 PM

I think America is coming to a place where it get's what it desrves. This guy Brown is an in it for himself hatemonger who represents a Republican Party that hasn't done any thing for the people of America for 20 years. It's like Bill Maher said, this is a stupid country, it is. To a large extent I blame the media, the American media has trained th electorate to vote against it's own best interest, every time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jdb316

January 18, 2010 11:07 PM in reply to heir ball

The American media puts out what will sell its product, just like any other business. When they try to tell their audience what they should consider important, that's when sales suffer. So naturally they just give their audience what it wants.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AnswerFrog

January 18, 2010 6:34 PM

Anything the Politico puts out should be viewed as GOP spin.

I'd say this is what Nate said it is:

A toss up.

Bottomline: Get out and vote!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Campesino

January 18, 2010 7:29 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

Anything the Politico puts out should be viewed as GOP spin.

I'd say this is what Nate said it is:

A toss up.

====================================================

Ah, sorry but no. He's calling it for Brown

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/538-model-posits-brown-as-31-favorite.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RIConservative

January 18, 2010 6:43 PM

"Anything the Politico puts out should be viewed as GOP spin."

Yes and the DailyKOS is a reputable an non-biased institution of fairness.....LOL....gimmie a break.

The polls no longer matter anyway. The votes will be counted and it is what it is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

toesinthesand

January 18, 2010 6:54 PM

Here on cape Cod (Kennedy country) Brown signs outnumber Coakley sign 8 or 10 to 1. And many more have sprouted up quite recently.
I think two things have fatally wounded the Coakley campaign. The first was the lack of attention bordering on contempt she has paid up until recently to the actual voters. Voters are the people who pay her salary, as either AG or as senator. The second has been the vitriolic turn her campaign has taken. Negative advertising is one thing, but the tone of her advertising has gone far beyond negative. Good people can differ with civility, but there has been a marked tone of what can only be loathing and hatred from the Coakley campaign for not only Scott Brown but those who would support him.
I have voted Democratic for nearly all of my life. I voted for Obama, as I did for Ted Kennedy many times. And I voted for Martha Coakley for AG last time around. Coakley has forced me to vote for Scott Brown this time, and forced me to vote for whoever runs against her for AG next time around.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

heir ball

January 18, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to toesinthesand

See my previous post.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

carlosbas

January 18, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to toesinthesand

Let's say we admit she is a terrible politician, hear that, p o l i t i c i a n. Does that mean she was a bad public servant?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rj

January 19, 2010 12:37 AM in reply to toesinthesand

For local and state races, fine. But if you care at all about the stuff most of us here profess to care about, the party balance in DC matters. Hold your nose and vote for Coakley. Please.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mjtrac2

January 18, 2010 6:54 PM

The "InsiderAdvantage/Politico" poll shows 52-43 and you state it has a 3.4% margin of error. It shows the question as: "If the election were held today how would you vote?" but doesn't show any other methodology or prior questions.

The DailyKos poll shows 48-48 and shows a 4.5% margin of error. I can't find any information about what it asked or how. It just says "likely voters."

So, would anyone who understands statistics care to tell us what this means, if anything? Would combining the two polls' individual responses give us a lowered "margin of error"?

This is exceptionally disheartening at this point in the nation's life. The first thing that comes to (my) mind is that at least one of these polls is complete disinformation. Yet, based on the information provided in the report above, there is no way for an intelligent, interested citizen to determine which poll, if either, is accurate.

If the race comes out at 50-46, I hereby apologize but, jeez, this looks suspicious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hewhohasnoname

January 18, 2010 7:16 PM in reply to mjtrac2

Actually, both polls could be "right," in the sense that they respectively reflect the electorate that they polled.

But, the major caveat here is that the polled "likely voters" electorate may not reflect the ACTUAL electorate. That remains the great unknown with this race: Who is actually gonna show up to vote tomorrow in this special election for a Senate seat that was held by Ted Kennedy for almost 50 years?

That question will only be answered tomorrow. Perhaps, one of these pollsters will have been more accurate in determining the electorate that shows up tomorrow, but we won't actually know until the votes are cast. [There's also a chance that they're both terribly wrong, as special elections are notoriously difficult to poll. NY-23 anyone?]

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sconset

January 18, 2010 7:00 PM

I live here in Massachusetts and yes, it is tight but I think she may just squeak in. People are really pissed off at the teabagger's who have overrun this state and the pushpolling that has gone on for the last 4 days is beyond anything I have ever encountered.

College kids are either leaving for school tomorrow or are coming back home just to vote--people remember another smooth phoney, Mitt Romney who left this state 2.75 billion in debt when he left to run for Prez.

Gay marriage is apparently a very big issue because I have received 2 push polls from the Institute of Marriage or some bullshit organization run by lard ass Maggie Gallagher (an opinion writer like Malkin for Murdoch's Post) out of Princeton, NJ. The other was about abortion---not one word about the economy or jobs.

Today I got a text message on my cell phone about gay marriage and I returned the message with Drop Dead!

Also, all of the greater Boston hotels, Worcester and Springfield are sold out to teabaggers and their organizations. Screw them---voters will turn out......and I don't give a damn what MSNC and the idiots on that station have to say, or CNN, and especially Fox. These people are NOT up here and have no clue what is in peoples minds or what people will do tomorrow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mr_Blifil

January 18, 2010 7:02 PM

"InsiderAdvantage is run by former Newt Gingrich aide Matt Towery."

Why was this not the title of the post? C'mon people. You're going to trust the likely voter sampling of this douchebag? Coakley could lose, but tearing our hair over polls conducted by rabid partisans is idiotic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sconset

January 18, 2010 7:03 PM

I live here in Massachusetts and yes, it is tight but I think she may just squeak in. People are really pissed off at the teabagger's who have overrun this state and the pushpolling that has gone on for the last 4 days is beyond anything I have ever encountered.

College kids are either leaving for school tomorrow or are coming back home just to vote--people remember another smooth phoney, Mitt Romney who left this state 2.75 billion in debt when he left to run for Prez.

Gay marriage is apparently a very big issue because I have received 2 push polls from the Institute of Marriage or some bullshit organization run by lard ass Maggie Gallagher (an opinion writer like Malkin for Murdoch's Post) out of Princeton, NJ. The other was about abortion---not one word about the economy or jobs.

Today I got a text message on my cell phone about gay marriage and I returned the message with Drop Dead!

Also, all of the greater Boston hotels, Worcester and Springfield are sold out to teabaggers and their organizations. Screw them---voters will turn out......and I don't give a damn what MSNC and the idiots on that station have to say, or CNN, and especially Fox. These people are NOT up here and have no clue what is in peoples minds or what people will do tomorrow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

toesinthesand

January 18, 2010 7:07 PM

I don't know where you are from heir ball, but I know it is not from Massachusetts. I have been politically active and aware for over twenty years in Massachusetts, and I have never seen a campaign as hateful, deceptive, and just plain dishonest as the Coakley campaign has been since the last debate here. Rather than rallying the base here, Coakley has forced them away. Personally I know quite a few loyal Democrats so disgusted by Coakley's performance that they are either staying home or voting Brown.
As far you believing America is a stupid country (re:your previous post), I can only come to the conclusion that you have that opinion based on your own lack of intelligence. I am not trying to be insulting, but to make such an idiotic statement as that which you made forces one to come to the conclusion that you are not gifted with great intellect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

heir ball

January 18, 2010 7:16 PM in reply to toesinthesand

This is very much a national race now. I've got to assume by what you've said that you approve of the Bush years.I think they were horrible, and if you're so willing to go back to that already, it says a lot more about you than it does about me. No?
I didn't mean to insult you, but I'd really like to know, in the 20 years you've been "polically aware" what have the Republicans done to help the people of this country?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

toesinthesand

January 18, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to heir ball

Bear in mind that I have voted predominantly Democratic over my voting history. That having been said, I am a student of history and a former Special Forces officer. What have Republicans done well...?
Ronald Reagan, and to a much lesser degree George Bush 41 forced the collapse of the Soviet Union through deception (Star Wars, never a feasible program but one that terrified the Kremlin) and through intelligent engagement of Soviet proxies throughout the world. Bush 41 lost my vote however when he failed to defeat Saddam/s armies in the field in the first Gulf War. This was achievable, yet Bush 41 was timid. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...as we did. Another bit of credit I will give President Reagan is restoring American self esteem and prestige after the debacle in Iran. After 4 years of Jimmy Carter I was ready for anyone else...
Bush 43 was certainly the best thing that has happened to the Democratic party in this lifetime. But focusing on the failures of another is no substitute for achieving something yourself. In that regard, Coakley has failed my sniff test.
Small people talk about others, great people talk about ideas.
Coakley qualifies as the former...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

heir ball

January 18, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to toesinthesand

You prove my point. I agree with your last post 100%, but you had to back further than 20 years. See what I mean?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

January 18, 2010 9:23 PM in reply to toesinthesand

That is utterly stupid.

Saddam Hussein was one of the foremost exterminators of terrorists in the Middle East. It was taking him out that opened the pandora's box he now face.

That was a wsdom 41 had -- but which Reagan, you, and 43 lack. And Reagan was always a fraud.

Gad, I can't remember when the length of my political awareness was limited to twenty years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

toesinthesand

January 19, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to JNagarya

Saddam was one of the foremost exterminators of his own people, as well as a good number of Kuwaitis. The US had a good deal of responsibility with his retention of power and his ability to engage in war against our enemy, Iran, during the 1980's. He was acting as our proxy in that conflict. To be certain we should have been responsible for removing this dictator from power, as much for our benefit as for that of the Iraqi people. Hitler acted as a bulwark against Stalin and Communism in the 1940's...would you have supported him as well for that?
As far as my political awareness, I became very interested in politics after living the consequences of poor political decisions. In my capacity as an employee of the United States I had the opportunity to work with and get to know many Kurdish people. They were wonderful, kind, brave people. And most of the ones I knew are now dead, due to the ineptness of Bush 41 and the sadism of Saddam. In 100 years Reagan will be seen to be as among the greatest of American presidents, and Bush 41 will be seen as a stain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JNagarya

January 19, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to toesinthesand

Saddam was a US ally -- Regan and Bush I -- while exterminating "his own people". These are the facts:

Bush I urged the Shi'ites to rise up against and overthrow Saddam, and promised that the US would back them when they did. But when they did rise up to overthrow Saddam, Bush looked the other way -- and the result of his urging was what Bush II called "mass grave".

That mass grave was caused by Bush I's not-give-a-damn.

And let's look a little closer:

Saddam alleged "gassed his own people" using WMDs made from materiale sold to him by such as Ronnie Reagan and Bush I. Recall the photo of a Republican private businessman -- who would later be the worst Sec. of Defense in our history -- shaking hands with Saddam when he delivered that materiale to him?

While Saddam was eliminating the threat to his gov't -- ever heard of the purpose of the US Constitution's stipulation as to the prurpose of the under-rule-of-law well regulated militia as concerns insurrections? -- by "exterminating his own people," Bush I not only was a no-show, but he said NOTHING about that mass murder. Because he didn't care.

Then, 16 years later, Bush II decided to give a damn about a crime "He gassed his own people!" [as result of weapons sales by the US by Reagan-Bush I and encouragement and neglect of Bush I] as excuse to illegally invade and occupy the non-threatening sovereign nation of Iraq.

"My country right or wrong" is one of the most immoral pretexts for the commission and defense of heinous crimes by one's country; the "mass graves" were direct result of Bush I's mouth and negligence. So stop lying that the US has clean hands in the matter: the world, and even reactionary extremists such as you, know it does not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bubba1984

January 19, 2010 1:13 AM in reply to heir ball

Three more years like Obama's first year (10% unemployment, dollar falling like a rock, America the laughing stock of the world, terrorist influence expanding) and the American people just might elect George Bush to a third term.

And yes, I would have started waterboarding the Christmas terrorist Christmas night.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

scottatrw

January 18, 2010 7:27 PM

Coakley absolutely correct about the Taliban no longer being in Afghanistan...as they attack Kabul. BTW, Martha...Kabul is in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtO2s8R6Hqc

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Central Square

January 18, 2010 7:44 PM

Weather will be bad. Indi's leaning towards Cl...errr...Brown... will stay planted on there sofas watching tv and eating chips. Dems will be out at the polls and bringing friends. Coakley will win.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

toesinthesand

January 19, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to Central Square

After this election I suspect that Martha might be moving to Kabul. Aren't they looking for an Attorney General who tends not to aggressively prosecute sex crimes against children? Not to mention I think a burka would do Martha justice....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?