Left In Lowell

Lies, Damned Lies, and MA Republicans

17 Responses to “Lies, Damned Lies, and MA Republicans”

1. waittilnextyr Says:
   August 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 am

   The special election must be held within 5 months of the vacancy, but that is not to say it could not happen sooner - much sooner.

   If Kennedy were to say now that he will vacate the seat no later than October 31st, why not declare a special election for the seat to occur on November 3rd (coincident with the current local election to save money, and maybe have certain other advantages). The prospective candidates would then have over 2 months to campaign (well withing the 5 month requirement) and the new Senator could be seated within weeks or even days of Kennedy’s departure.

2. Brian Flaherty Says:
   August 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am

   But Kennedy was the one who pushed for the change in law in 2004! If you read the article from the Boston Globe, he was mentioned in the lead as someone pushing for the change. If he is so concerned about the state not having representation, why wasn’t he then? This is politics pure and simple and those on the left need to have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

3. Ryan Adams Says:
   August 23rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm

   I don’t think you can look at Minnesota and use that as an example to defend not having representation — that state was screwed without representation and was much worse for the wear because of it. It also screwed things up for this country — losing that one seat had a tremendous impact on legislation, especially with the stimulus bill.

4. Lynne Says:
   August 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm

   Ryan, you just repeated what I said. LOL there are two paragraphs mentioning MN. They survived, but they lost out too.

5. Lynne Says:
   August 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm

   And Brian, I don’t think anyone isn’t admitting this is politics. The obvious reason is the debate on health care and other Obama initiatives like addressing global climate change. That is a big “duh.” However, that doesn’t mean that the concept itself isn’t the right thing to do. That is what I am saying.

6. joe from Lowell Says:
   August 23rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm

   Exactly what solution wouldn’t be “politics,” Brian?

   Would adhering to the version of the law on the books today - the one created to deny Mitt Romney the opportunity to appoint a Senator - be free from politics?

   Or, would changing the law be free from politics?

   How do we do this without politics? I’m all ears.

7. Brian Flaherty Says:
   August 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm

   Joe,

   Well when the law was changed in 2004 it was because of politics by the Dems…same this time too.

8. Brian Flaherty Says:
   August 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm

   Even Joan Vennochi, a liberal, is calling out the Dems for this:

   “For now, Kennedy’s move looks as if it’s all about health care reform. From a political perspective, it shows how much President Obama and the Democrats have lost their way. They are so desperate, they must squeeze the last drop of power out of a dying man. They need the last vestiges of political capital that still flow from Camelot, in the one state where remnants of that dream still live on. They will embarrass a governor, put pressure on a state legislature, and stir the cynicism of an already cynical electorate. And even with Kennedy’s vote, or that of a surrogate, the Democrats still might not have the filibuster-proof 60-vote margin they seek.”

   http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/23/pure_power_politics/

9. Lynne Says:
   August 24th, 2009 at 8:24 am

   First, Joan isn’t really a liberal. Or often, that salient.

   Second, “they must squeeze the last drop of power out of a dying man”?? Um, last I checked, Kennedy was his own man. More so than most politicians. I doubt anyone is wringing anything from him. Hyperbole much?

10. joe from Lowell Says:
    August 24th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Well when the law was changed in 2004 it was because of politics by the Dems…same this time too.

    No kidding. That’s why I wrote, “Would adhering to the version of the law on the books today - the one created to deny Mitt Romney the opportunity to appoint a Senator - be free from politics?”

    I still don’t see anything but Democrat-bashing from you.

11. Lynne Says:
    August 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    As someone at BMG says, Republicans entered in the same amendment to the law change in 2004 (temporary appointment, while special election is going on) back then. But now are against it. Funny how that isn’t called “politics” though huh?

12. fishydude Says:
    August 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Missing in all of this is that Ted has missed 97% of the votes since his terminal diagnosis. If he really cared about MA voters her would have retired the next day. But he does not. He needs time to maneuver another Kennedy into the Kennedy owned seat.

    As for the health care debate, only the Democrats are being dishonest. Everyone else is looking at the vague language of the legislation that pushes the details to unelcted committees and boards with people like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s chief health-care architect who as recently as January has stated “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
    -Lancet, Vol 373, January 31, 2009, 428
    Or this gem “Services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
    -Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet Author(s): Ezekiel J. Emanuel Source: The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 26, No. 6, .

    But Democrats insist there is no rationing in there. No withholding of treatment from the elderly and disabled.
    It is by virtue of the people appointed by Our Dear Leader that will be writing and implimenting the details of reform so the elected reps can deny responsibility when the truth starts closing nursing homes and NICUs. No more premees. Just a lot more “miscarriages.”

13. Mr. Lynne Says:
    August 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    Bunk:

    We’ll leave it to you to determine the merits of Emanuel’s philosophical observations. But the context makes it clear that Emanuel is describing the implications of a particular philosophical trend, not offering a policy prescription.

    …

    Dr. Emanuel strenuously objects to this interpretation. “This is certainly untrue and a distortion of my record,” he told FactCheck.org in a telephone interview. He said that his academic work is being taken completely out of context.

    We agree that Emanuel’s meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited.

    There’s more detail there, of course. Misrepresenting what a doctor wrote 15 years ago in an acedemic examination of models for prioritizing organ donations under conditions of scarcity… yeah that’s dishonest.

14. Lynne Says:
    August 25th, 2009 at 6:55 am

    LMAO@fishydude. No really, that was laughable.

    Don’t even talk to me about rationing. We have worse rationing in this country under private insurance than any “socialized” country. I have a lot of friends in Canada. Trust me, they pity us.

    But you’ve never really convinced me on anything you post, it’s a shame really. Just Republican talking points akimbo.

15. joe from Lowell Says:
    August 26th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    When that tape of Zeke Emmanuel ranting about whitey comes out, Lynne, won’t you be sorry?

16. fishydude Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 11:02 am

    Private insurance doesn’t ration health care. Not paying for a given treatment doesn’t mean you can not get it.
    Under that proposed reforms, the government will tell doctors what they can and can not do. you will not have the option of paying for a treatment that your doctor believes you need if the government says you can’t.
    That is rationing.
    When my nephew who was born with down syndrome needs life saving treatment, he could very well be denied because he is not a “productive citizen.” This does not happen under the current system.
    Only Canadians that don’t get sick like their system. Lahey Clinic has many Canadian patients that can not get timely treatment on their side of the border. Hospital all along the board in NY and Michigan have regular flows of Canadians who can not get health care at home.
    Tiny South Korea has more MRI machines than Canada. There is no medical innovation or development in Canada.
    The greatest medical advances come from countries where the profit motive exists.
    What would our cars, home and cell phones look like without the profit motive?
    The profit motive improves efficiency and drives innovation.
    What are the most inefficient organizations in Massachusetts? All are public employee organizations. You want the same people the bring you the T and the Turnpike toy run health care?
    I suspect Lynne also believes that Ted Kennedy did not commit a crime when he left Mary Jo to die.

17. Lynne Says:
    August 27th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    “Under that proposed reforms, the government will tell doctors what they can and can not do.”

    Wrong.

    “Private insurance doesn’t ration health care. Not paying for a given treatment doesn’t mean you can not get it.”

    Basically, it does. Unless you think most people have thousands or tens of thousands of dollars lying around available for getting themselves treatment?

    “When my nephew who was born with down syndrome needs life saving treatment, he could very well be denied because he is not a “productive citizen.””

    Wrong. No where anywhere does anyone say anything about treatments based on who you are or how “productive” you are. That’s called lying. Or being delusional.

    “This does not happen under the current system.”

    Wrong. It happens, but because said parent is uninsured and can’t pay for it. Actually, because of the GOVERNMENT run SCHIP, he might well still have access to health care, because we’re trying to ensure kids at least get care even if their parents are uninsured, via the SCHIP program.

    “Only Canadians that don’t get sick like their system.”

    OMG so wrong. I have a ton of friends up in Canada. Who have had all manner of sicknesses, and kids who have had all manner of sicknesses. Stop talking out your ass please.

    You are basically so unfact based that I honestly shouldn’t bother, and I won’t on the rest of your very uninformed commentary. Go post on redstate or something.

Leave a Reply