Really? The MA Senate election didn't help you any? No Republican support at all? We have some people running around commiting violence, that seems normal? When the election comes you'll just move the goal posts and blame unemployment.
Scot Brown has won the election because he was the better candidate (national politics were not the biggest factor for his victory), his opposing candidate didn't even bother to show up (she was on vacation). I would have voted for him, because the other candidate just did not deserve it.
Violence, yes considering what effort has made to promote it. Especially when you have people like palin just begging for violence to happen ... In normal countries "inciting violence" is a crime, in the US it s normal: so yes the violence is normal in a "special" country like the US
“Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: ‘Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!’”_____________________________ Sarah Palin
http://www.alan.com/2010/03/24/palin-puts-gun-sighs-on-target-map-says-ti/
There is more proof the majority of Americans were against it than for it. The polls may have been inaccurate, yes, but none other than far left polls showed a majority support.
The only part of the vote that was bi-partisan were the nays.
President Obama is supposed to be for the people. He should have compassion for those that were against the bill (law) and not ridicule them or egg them on. He should have used his time in front of a national audience to let them know that he appreciates their concerns and assure them that they will benefit from it in time.
Not use the time to ridicule them and say "see, the sky is not falling" when, all the while, nothing has been implenmented yet.
I was very disenchanted with the behavior of our President. It was a sign of immaturity.
He made it sound like he BEAT the Americans he is supposed to be serving.
If that were true than he d have used the 51 vote rule (or his filibusterproof majority) from the beginning and not bother with trying to involve republicans who already had made their position clear before knowing what would be in the bill.
He did not ridicule them, they ridiculed themselves by being incredibly obstructionist. "Say NO" is indeed what a mother says to its child if its wants to use drugs, this is not something that full grown people use as an "argument". And saying NO to something before knowing what it is is just THE steriotype of an obstructionist.
He did use his time to let the american people know that he appreciates their concerns and assured them that they will benefit from it in time: that s why his party changed the bill and made it a compromise. You ll notice that the far left is very unhappy about the bill because of the compromise that has been made towards conservative & republican americans. Besides that the president kept out of the legislative process in order not to "dictate" the bill upon the american people, he even went out to the public to convince the people of why this bill is important. He even incorporated several ideas from republicans into the bill and thanked them for it.
Ok true, the bipartisanship that opposed the bill showed that their are big concerns against the bill from constituents from conservative states. But you can not ignore that republicans and the right-wing media have blown this bill all out of proprotion by using scare tactics (remember the "dead squads"? "Abortion" which is not even mentioned in the bill). The opposition is more a result of the effective scare tactics that the republicans, ensurance lobby-groups used. It appears to have been effective, they have done a good job at protecting insurance companies and their interests (higher premiums).
As far as representing the people: imho he is, republicans seem to be the ones who are not representing the people (but representing the insurance industry). What good arguments did they use? (healthcare costs will be lowered according to independent sources, their is nothing true of the abortion/deathsquads in the bill, ...)
