Before getting into the 'questions' one has to realize the strategy by the Republican Party is based in 'tried and true' TACTICS used by Bush and Cheney.
The 'uptick' of Brown is due to a huge amount of money coming into the campaign at the 'eleventh hour' ALONG with messages of fear.
The Democrats need to make the effort to 'know' The Independent Voter and not expect them to come to their value system without 'out reach.'
The Independent Voter has no profound 'value system,' except, what is good from them 'at the moment.' They aren't Democrats in disguise. In many ways they are disenfranchised from any political party. They basically don't want to affiliate with anyone because they feel every party is corrupt and they are the only honest folks in the electorate.
They don't understand government, they don't want to understand government, they don't consent to methodologies of government and they would like to remake the entire political structure and begin again. They always see things that way, they always think that way and they always regret voting the way they did after a short while. They also don't learn from their mistakes.
A primary example was Bush in 2004. Many young voters cast their ballot for him because he blatantly stated, "I will not institute a draft." There hadn't been a draft, he was decreasing taxes regardless of their hardship the future would have to carry and they simply wanted a President that would not expand the capacity of the military as we were obviously engaged in an illegal war already. In many ways, the vote of 2004 was an agenda of military containment and nothing else.
Independents have no confidence in anything except what they know and they understand. They like to feel in personal control of their circumstances including the government even after an election. It is silly but true. It is an irrational way of dealing with 'a vote.' Independents have no rudder. They simply 'guess' at what they are being told in election material and through the media and don't engage ANY value system as if it belongs to a party and therefore so do they.
They would like some kind of 'homogenized' party of both Republicans and Democrats, but, simply don't understand how they can't have it after generations of frustration.
IN THE ELECTIONS FOLLOWING THE BUSH YEARS, the Republicans have 'learned' how fear and religious fervor mix well with lies to strike at the 'sense of well being' that will drive people in a direction they previously would not have taken. It is a BLATANT strategy against the electorate and they deployed it in Massachusetts 'on cue.'
When one analyzes Brown's message, it is all based in visceral issues. Health care is 'an intimate' issue and 'security' is a safety issue. They are both hot topics in regard to this administration in DC and the Independent voter is reacting to a lack of belief system, a lack of knowledge and emotional content that tells them 'they are safe in doing things the old way.' The Independent Voter is retreating from reality and promise and hope and returning to exploitation in hopes they can control something they already know about. They are fearing the unknown.
I don't think Brown is even talking about issues that concern Massachusetts either. I mean what has Giuliani got to do with Massachusetts? Clinton, yes, as a former President. Kerry, yes, as a current Senator. Obama, yes, as the current President. Mrs. Kennedy, yes, as a legacy to her late spouse. But. Giuliani? What did he have to say about issues regarding Massachusetts? Not a darn thing. And this is not a run for the Presidency, it is a Senate seat.
How can spending stop increasing debt?
- the electorate now and in the upcoming elections of 2010 is convinced the Democrats are not reliable to trust with their Treasury. It doesn't matter the sound decision making that has gone into any stimulus bill. It doesn't matter they had 'the con' of the century occur in the last Republican administration in the White House, it only matters they are scared of concepts they haven't experienced yet and will retreat to understanding what they know.
How can President Obama sign a bill that does not provide for a public option in order to increase competition?
It doesn't matter that there are other provisions in the bill that will provide competition and options that are similar to a Public Option. It doesn't matter that millions of Americans are without any health care and that could happen to them, too. If they aren't experiencing it, it does not exist and it does not have priority. Independents aren't noble people committed to any philosophy or belief system. They literally go with what they believe is personally noble and POPULAR to them. They don't realize that both Houses of the Legislature have the opportunity to use Reconciliation as a method to pass the bill and customize it to the exact bill we wanted in the first place. They don't stop to realize President Obama is listening to the legislature in what is preceived as a compromise. They don't realize the President may not be able to live up to every campaign promise because of compromised IMPOSED on him by the very legislators in the House and Senate they elected. They'll simply make the same mistake again.
How can any Democrat say the Health Care Bill will pay for itself when it raises taxes on The Middle Class when everyone was promised they would not see tax increases?
This issue is simply a matter of blatant propaganda. There is not one word in that question that is anchored in a truthful issue. This is a 'created for election' issue by the Republicans and can't be answered. It cannot be answered because its premise is all "W"rong. The idea that insurance companies will increase their premiums after the bill is passed because they have to insure the so called uninsurable is a completely wrong premise. The voters see this as a 'tax' as well. Increasing premiums is not a tax, it is an issue WHEN AND IF it ever presents itself. From where I stand there is no taxes created by the Health Care Bill that will impact anyone or couple making less than $200,000 or $400,000 US. So, all this mess about increased costs and taxing the Middle Class is fabricated. There are specific cost containment measures for premiums for helath care that will result after the bill is passed. The question is fabricated. An electorate SHOULD EXPECT to be protected by legislation and not exploited. IF the Health Insurance Industry finds loopholes or words to exploit after the bill is printed, then it needs to be addressed by the government. Legislation is a process. It is a process before a bill is written and it continues after a bill is passed. The entire question is hideous. The American people under Republican domination have become 'used to thinking' they are chronically nieve to their 'FINAL' outcomes. That doesn't have to be the case at all. What the American electorate has to do is to stop retreating to 'what they know' rather than 'venturing' into what hope lies ahead. They have to trust again. That trust will be postponed as long as they continue to be effected by propaganda.
How does any Democrat justify 'special treatment' of any state or political crony like unions?
This is an easy question to answer. To begin, what is a political crony? It is an entity that profits from government monies and/or brings votes to a candidate regardless of the sincere actions of a candidate. States cannot be cronies and organizations cannot be cronies. States and organization are comprised of people that range in all walks of life and socio-economic status. The unions represent workers, the states are government entities, they could never be cronies or privileged unless someone is getting a pay off. No one anywhere in the Health Care Bill is being paid off. AND. Not all states are created equal. There are poor states and wealthy states. It is a fact. It is the OBLIGATION of the federal government to maintain a 'common treasury' to benefit all the people and that sometimes mean carving out benefits for states with poorer incomes to their state and local governments. THAT is a fact. If one wants a blatant example of legislation that awarded monies differently all one has to do is look at the legislation passed under Bush for Homeland Protection monies. The provision for North Dakota is legitimate and very, very constitutional.
Unions are recognized as legitimate bargaining entities that represent the best interests of their members. They are allowed to donate to candidates that represent those member interests. The party is usually the Democrats because the Democrats concern themselves with issues of The Middle and Working Class. The unions are not only allowed to donate to candidates they are allowed to petition government officials when it is perceived legislation is not in the best outcome to their members. That is legal, it is a fact, it is constitutional and it is an obligation of unions to their members. Members pay dues to their unions to carry out those directives. It is just that unions are ostracized by Republican legislators that favor private industry and stockholder profits and a minority of citizens at the top of the income scale in the USA. Unions, by nature, represent a much broader scope of people in culture, income and social status. Unions should have an open door to any legislator as organizations that better represent democracy than any private industry or stockholder ever could. It is wrong to exclude them on sensitive issues that directly effect their members.
Why do I feel as though the promises of the Obama Administration were lies?
They weren't lies. President Obama sits in the Executive Branch and not the dictatorship. Kindly remember that. He doesn't come out everyday to make grandstanding statements to reassure the people of the country as he is 'at work' and not 'at campaigning.' There is something very wrong with any elected authority that acts on insecurity to carry out their office. Not only that, but, President Obama can only hope to have loyality from the legislature. There is every reason to believe he has that loyalty, but, the difficult aspect is achieving bipartisanship on anything. It is the Republicans that have decided it is a political advantage to be the Party of No. If one pays attention to the speeches President Obama makes, they are unwavering 99% of the time. I don't see that he has changed 'his promises' at all since being elected, however, the 'reality' of trying to achieve those promises are now impacted for a variety of reason. The most stark reality for me is not Health Care, but, Afghanistan. Before President Obama took office there was never this level of transparency about Afghanistan and Pakistan. If there was and the fact finding was this through the American people could have impeached the Bush Administration. Bush never lived up to his oath of office and neither did Cheney. Any electorate has to give some latitude to an elected President while accepting the reality of any circumstance as he reports on it. The world is not perfect. President Obama tries to make it so, but, sometimes its not as attainable as we would like. He is a wonderful President and sincerely cares about the people that elected him. I admire him. His response to the Haiti disaster is above and beyond anything that we have witnessed before. He took responsibility and the USA will probably have a presence there for some time to come until a stable government can be returned to Haitian people. What I like best about President Obama is that he is sincere in delegating responsibility and holding those responsible to see their jobs through competently. He also surrounds himself with diversity of views in the highest levels of his cabinet. Bush never did. Bush and Cheney isolated their positions and surrounded themselves with 'Yes men.'
Good night.
