Steevo: I disagree. Anyone but an autograph signing politician from Wrentham that would rather shake hands with an adoring F-150 crowd outside Gillette Stadium than solve our financial problems without giving more tax breaks to the country club set. Brownie's got nothing to offer, but talk about Cherokee Indians. we all know how that went.

Agreed Frank.

Frank: "did his job", meaning what. Bragged about voting for Universal healthcare for 32 million uninsured Americans, watered down Todd-Frank financial reform for the banks, against a Stimulus ( which was initially Bush's idea) to forestall a deeper recession, co-sponsored the Blunt Amendment, denying women equal pay in the workplace, found our withdrawal from Iraq " troublesome", has no problem cutting Social Security and Medicare, but will vote to keep the 2% with their unneeded tax cuts in a minute, has no problem with CEOs outsourcing American jobs to China and India, wanted romney but pretended to be " independent, although a registered Republican for 25 years, and runs away from the label, will back Mitch McConnell 100%. Stuff like that? Do we have to go over all this stuff again? The People of Massachusetts told him 'NO" last Nov 6th. Been there, done that. Bye for good.

Tyler, I know facts are a tough thing for you but Brown voted with Dems 46% of the time he was in DC. Drop the facade of wanting to solve anything. The Dems in Massachusetts showed they want more partisanship and grid lock in DC. You all have been exposed when you elected liawatha Warren.

Bob: Lameduck Philip voted with Democrats on inconsequential matters to up the percentages. When it counted Brown voted with his Republican country club buddies; voted 18 times not to extend unemployment benefits for working stiffs; is anti-union; voted only for the Dodd-Frank bill after be watered it down by getting 18 billion in bank fees out( now the taxpayers pick that up); voted not to abolish oil subsidies that now cost tax payers 20 billion are year to make up he difference, thanks to his buddy David Koch.
The gridlock is coming from the Republicans who have pledged to have Obama fail, their primary goal- it didn't work.
I'll disregard the insulting "Hiawatha" remark , since I don't comment on ignorance

"lameduck Phillip" says the guy who wont comment on ignorance. Priceless.

LOL Absolutely Outstanding!!!!

coldwaterconiver: his middle name is Philip and he is a lame duck. Both statements are true. Nothing wrong with that dude.

jc, 7% of private sector workers are in unions. A large percentage of those voted for Brown. They just can't admit it publicly. As for the other "points" (middle-class and women) it is good to see you continue to cling to the Dem. talking points regardless of validity or facts.
Fact - Brown was the second most bi-partisan Senator. This in a time when the Democrats are yelling about Washington being so partisan! You elect a coat holder who will vote with her party 95+% of the time. See above about Dem talking points!
Fact - Brown pushed and passed a jobs bill that was part of Obama's jobs act that was defeated in the Senate by BOTH parties! Brown pulled the good parts out and worked with the Dem MAJORITY and got pieces passed that have helped the middle class.
I hope he gives us all the finger and tells us to choke on the idiots we elect and keep re-electing! But save the talking points, only ignorant people believe those!

I'm endlessly amused by the wailing of "But he was bipartisan!!! You said you wanted bipartisan!!!!" Well sure, if we must have a Republican, I'd prefer s/he be bipartisan. But I'd rather have a Democrat who votes with the Dems. Duh. There is no contradiction and no hypocrisy there, no matter how hard you try to pretend there is.

You might not understand the praise for Scott Brown because you appear to be a knee-jerk progressive. You just read off the talking points from TPM. Failing to support poorly crafted legislation does not mean that one gives "lip-service" to middle-class issues or doesn't like women. I think that there were very specific reasons why Brown rejected major legislation proposed by the Senate majority, and that those reasons are thoughtful and rational.

Diana, then stop the belly aching about the Republican's blocking Obama and nothing getting done in DC. Without bi-partisanship nothing will ever get done. It is the basis of our form of government getting things done. Without it, you have what we have gotten since the Dems took the House and Senate in 2006. Look how well that has served this country!

JC, why do you say he's against women? that's one of the blind talking points that I never understood.

CWD, brown co-sponsered the Blunt amendment. that's about anti-women as you can get.

jc: I agree all the way . you picked it out. Buster Brown has a deep comtempt for women, and females , with the innate intuition that they have , picked it right out. Buster tried to counter that with : I fold laundry once a year and am married to a women". Ya , Buster, ya.

Jon, read beyond the liawatha talking points! The Blunt amendment was a question of religious freedom. The DNC formed it as a war on women and their sheep took their marching orders and shouted the bs from the roof tops. It was about the Catholic church not having to pay for a service they religiously disagree with. Simple and it was the right thing.
Not anti-women, pro Constitution!

Bob, the blunt amendment was written by angry white old men, that support the view point of the catholic religion ( angry old white men in charge, women are subservient, second class "people"). Why should your religion have anything to say about what medication women can take. They don't believe in science or medicine. They should have no say. no employer should. and you wonder why attendance at the "church" is ever decreasing. you still live in the dark ages. nobody other that me should have any say in my insurance coverage.

I'm really, reeeeaaaaally hoping to be appointed to a Death Panel.

I'm all for Obamacare. It's entertaining how Republicans slam that plan (while cherrypicking what they know the public wants) with no workable counterproposal, just a lot of patronizing rhetoric. Sorry, but scare tactics fail with me. My only fear was Romney winning and that worked out very well. The future looks bright.

jc, you are all for Obamacare. I realize that it is 2,700 pages that you have read in detail, but in 500 words or less, please explain what the act does and how it works.

To jc: do you really want Obamacare?? Possible microchipping talked of: http://epilepsyfoundation.ning.com/group/livingwellwithepilepsy/forum/topics/obamacare-mandatory-microchipping

We already have Obamacare in Massachusetts. Obamacare is Romneycare. Remember?

That is exactly how this country is becoming. I think it was called Soylent Green.

Ron: here is how Obamacare works ( you are not paying attention - FOX won't tell you this):
1. allows 32 million uninsured Americans an opportunity to get affordable healthcare;
2. allows kids up to 26 to stay on their parents insurance;
3. requires insurers to insure people with pre-existing conditions at affordable rates;
4. prevents automatic policy cancellations and caps that cut off benefits;
5. calls for more doctors, physician assistants and nurses, by subsidizing their educations;
6. more primary care physicians in rural areas;
7. covers contraception for unwanted pregnancies to public institutions ;
8. reforms administrative procedures to save costs
9. allows for negotiating prescription drugs and doctors' visits;
10. streamlines medicare costs , and reduces doctor's service benefits;
11. streamline 600 million from medicare costs;
12. close the prescription drug donut hole in Medicare , and saves seniors about $600 per year
to name a few

Dick: NO!. it's just a movie, unless you see the uniforms outside your hospital window.

Tyler, thank you for spelling out Obamacare. Sounds pretty good to me!

Well, Tyler, all of these are items that are on the whitehouse.gov site, and listed almost exactly in the order you listed them. But I wasn't really looking for what it does (or claims to do) without a discussion of how it works. I don't think that you will find anyone, Republican or Democrat, for example, who opposes "an opportunity" for uninsured Americans "to get affordable healthcare" or requiring "insurers to insure people with pre-existing conditions at affordable rates." I was looking for you to explain the mechanism. A thoughtful answer would touch on community rating, the health exchanges, the employer mandate, the Cadillax tax, the tax on medical devices , and who will oversee all of these.

For the record, I very rarely watch Fox News (once a year in a good year), and get my information from a variety of sources -- one of which is the whitehouse.gov site that you quoted. I rather have been paying attention, and I already know the answer to my question. I want to see a supporter articulate it.

Tom: I also think Ed Markey will make a great choice and will vote for him.. They( the Republicans and the so-called "independents" who always swing to the right come election time) will concentrate on trying to tie Markey to his wife, but his wife is not running. They will make the same mistake talking about Cherkoee Indians, which only shows they have no issues, and we all know how that turned out. Senator Elizabeth beat him buy 6 points, although in this neck of the woods you would not know that.

Saul: Part time jobs and no benefits are a product of profit maximizing CEOs, nothing to do with "Obama", but guys like you never miss a chance to denigrate our newly re-elected President. I like Obamacare. It allows 32 million Americans a shot at obtaining affordable healthcare. If we had a single payer system like the rest of the world, we would not have to worry about getting laid off and losing our healthcare, now , would we.

Keep telling yourself that Tyler! Look at all those people from Canada coming here for life saving surgery etc.
Oh yea, Britain, France and Canada ALL have a strong private insurance industry. Why? So the wealthy in those countries can get the healthcare they can't get in the public model.

Saul, Saul: There you go again; passing out false and misleading information. Obamacare does not even come into effect until 2014, and companies for the last 10 years have been laying people off, hiring part-times for 32 hours and no benefits, outsourcing jobs to China and India, thanks to the Republican Recession of 2009 where we were losing 750,000 jobs a month under Bush. That had nothing to do with "Obamacare", did it. You're confused, dude. Deep dislike for Barack Obama is at the root of it. No denying that. we're going Forward without you. We had an election and settled that; you lost. Obviously the American people , in spite of voter suppression in 22 states, thought differently and made the right decision.

#1T-bury: good point. Hope Saul is listening. That is precisely where Saul's misguided anti- Obama everything philosophy falls down. Attributes economic effects to the wrong causes, and in Saul's little world , everything points to "Obama". No way to go through life. of course , if Romney were elected, outsourcing would go unabated. thank, Jesus, that CEO Romey is history

#1 T-bury Resident: I hate to say, I don't think you are #1. At least not in my book. You are against entitlement programs? Which ones? I'd like to know what you consider entitlement programs. I hope you never need unemployment. I hope you NEVER become disabled. That would really suck. I hope you realize that social security and medicaid for the elderly is not an entitlement program. But an ABSOLUTE. They paid for it! So which entitlement programs are you against?? Be careful what you say, because I don't have to take advantage of entitlement programs, but I life changing events happen when you least expect it.

And yes, we have had Romneycare in this state and have not lost any jobs due to it. Obamacare is a new and improved version of it. But basically the same thing.

Yes #1Tbury restdent. This part of Obamacare starts in 2014, Not next week. But what i am reading about this part of it is really going to screw a lot of people. Companies are always looking to beat the IRS with ways to keep their monies. They are going to do the same with Obamacare. It is the employees who are going to get shafted when the company has to make ends meet.
Notice no one can ask Obama any questions on it? He has no idea what Obamacare is.

Saul/#1T: Companies under 50 employees are not required to do anything under Obamacare. They are EXEMPT. Most of the corporate world , aside from top management have been hiring part-time without benefits for years now. good argument for a single payer system not tied to employment. Look at Home Depot and Lowells , Maceys, most retail, supermarkets, you name it etc., as examples. Nothing to do with Obamacare. exchange markets do not start until 2014 and States can opt out anytime. The reason rising costs of healthcare costs

I think you need to read up on the law. Nobody gets anything for nothing. As a matter of fact they get fined if they don't have insurance. Everyone needs to buy insurance.

Correct, correct, and CORRECT! Love how you phrased it .. MA cannot EVER complain, not now or ever since it is such a one-party commonwealth and chose to remain so, ad infinitum it seems. But complain we must and hope to be heard at some level ... to be quiet is to appear to agree and to be complacent is weak, can lead to further demise of our democratic republic. I do wish we'd have kept Scott and would love to have him back but I'm not sure about his chances this time either. His last campaign was poor at best, and it's such a shame since I truly believe in his integrity and always felt his decisions were based upon good and well-thought reasoning, not along party lines. Ah, well, life is full of a number of things, we shall have to wait and see what his choice will be.

http://www.wbjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121002/NEWS01/121009986

Done. What next?

Yes, Ron, I read your article about a shortage of medical doctors, but NOWHERE is it said it is the result of Obamacare. The shortage existed way before Obama ever thought about the "Care", and since there will now be more people insured and wanting proper health care, if nothing is done about the doctors shortage, then it will not get better, with or without Obamacare. The basic problem is that not enough candidates with adequate education are available to postulate for the jobs.

Ron: The doctor shortage is caused by the AMA limiting enrollments, to pump up the salaries of their member doctors . There are plenty of highly qualified American students that would jump at the opportunity to become doctors . There is not shortage there if only the AMA would get out of the way, allow a few more medical schools to open, expand enrollment. BTW, Obamacare provides incentives for more , physicians, asst physicans, nurses, paralegals- that is part of the Plan, especially primary care physicians in rural areas. That's a good thing, Ron, unless you really do not want more doctors and would prefer to bash Obama, no matter what. face it, Ron, Obama won, and we are moving on. Peace.

You stated, "Just look what happened in Massachusetts." What happened in Massachusetts was universal coverage (or near universal coverage), but a shortage of doctors and much longer waiting times. And costs have not really been contained as far as I can tell. And I agree that Obamacare will face the same exact problems, for the same exact reasons.

Oh, but one difference between what happened in Massachusetts and what will happen nationally: there was no Cadillac tax that will hit a large number of the middle class here in Massachusetts.

Oh really? Is that why the shortage began right after the act was signed into law? It's really a question of math. There are many more patients and fewer doctors.

Healthcare inflation not contained in Massachusetts.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/february/22/massachusetts-health-cost-growth-slows.aspx

Tyler, again facts have you confused. The shortage started with the cuts to Medicare reimbursements that Obama instituted. Obama care has been in affect for almost 3 years now. It has been enacted in stages and each stage that comes on line has caused more problems. Now Obama wants to take another $400 Billion out of Medicare reimbursements. Hospitals and physicians are already turning away Medicare patients. I know because I live it every day.

I think that the shortage of doctors can be attributed to HMOs. I had a really good doctor for 25 years who ended up going totally private. One of the concierge doctors. He was going to charge $3500.00 for a family plan per year, that was on top of my insurance and co-pays in order to see him. I had to change.

Right, linita, and it did not raise the Mass State taxes either!

Quasi, you are wrong! It is taking money out for city and town aid. It is cutting aid to towns to build new schools. It is stopping towns from hiring police, fire and teachers. It has become a budget buster Towns and cities are raising property taxes, meals taxes and hotel taxes to replace the lost aid.

Bob: it's not about YOU. The country, dude, needs to reign in healthcare costs including Medicare recipients doctor's visits. Nana goes to the doctor with her daughter. the doctor asks if she id feeling fine, then schedules a "follow-up" for 3 weeks. Cost $300 for 5 minutes.Get in now, dude?

Tyler, dude! Not about me but abut my kids and grand kids! You have no idea! Average cost of a routine "sick" visit in Massachusetts is @$150 and ER visit is @$600. Sick visits are scheduled in 30 minute increments. That $150 pays for nurses, NP's, doctors and office staff. Also heat, rent, electricity and malpractice insurance. If you think that is a lot, you are nuts.
Medicare pays @$93 for that same visit. If you have to pay all those bills, which patients will you want to service?

Lady S: Ed Markey (D) by 4 points. Brown has got nothing left

Scott Brown is an empty suit. Lots of men seem to have a "boy crush" on him because he claims to like sports and wears his nice barn coat while driving a truck. Scott Brown...he's for us!...yeah, right.

Rick, you have guts to put call anyone irrelevant in the same post you claim Markey superiority! Truly oblivious!

communist's aren't fascists. Communists are far left, fascist are far right. You've been listening to Rush and Reilly too much to be taken for anything but a right wingnut tool. If you think that a ultra right fascist is left wing, then you are the most extreme uber far right wing. No talking sense with you, you're gone, a traitor to this country.

and since Massachusetts is one of the most educated states in the union, it's no wonder that the GOP only represents 16% of the population. Honestly, it's stranger that it's that high, but I guess that there will always be low or no information voters out there.

Hank Johnson is my favorite. Have you ever seen the video of him on Youtube?

MARK: WITH THIS LATEST POST, YOU TURNED OUT TO BE QUITE THE WHACKO

But I'd like to see Capuano run.

Huh?

"Racist?" Hilarious.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Naw, Brown criticized Warren because of her being an on-again-off-again Native American, and her leaning on race to get hired at Harvard. Note that she refused to meet with her fellow Indians during the campaign. A little DNA testing would go a long way.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Pimperton: trivial stuff, man. Nothing to do with politics or government. Buster Brown was running for US Senator, not Cherokee Chief, or CEO of an insurance company, or asbestos company. Focus, man, focus. Praise the Lord, dude.

whether she is an Indian or Not I think it just doesnt matter. I didnt vote for Brown for the same reasons

I agree Rick! Warren was a racist! She was not a Native American and filled out applications claiming such. She stole jobs from real minorities and therefore a racist!

Or if you stole

Aron, Elizabeth Warren is not part Native American. The Boston Globe conducted extensive interviews with her family, and although there is a family legend among her brothers and sisters, her cousins, aunts, and uncles had no knowledge of any native American ancestry. The best that someone could come up with was that a second cousin once remove MIGHT have been half Delaware or Cherokee. Which would make her 1/32nd Cherokee or Delaware ancestry, assuming the family legend is true, which the Globe could not find any evidence to support.

Well rick, i named my source. You didn't.

Hey...that's way cool...the positive thing about that is that it prevents you from having discussions with yourself......

It's amazing the media and supporters actually believe themselves. She should have been laughed out of Massachusetss but these people make excuses and vote for them. Same with Deval and his support of the rapist. But we're probabally just being racist.

Quote for the day:

"The best way to confuse a liberal is to hit them with facts..." Liberals feel, conservatives think.

Happy New Year to Pocohantas Warren and her tribe,
Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

This is the most thorough review of the geneological record, with commentary from http://www.pollysgranddaughter.com/p/elizabeth-warren-information.html. If you do any amount of research into this topic, you will see that this is a very important issue to Native American bloggers and writers.

"I am the wife of a career soldier and the mother of four. I am registered with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and, like my ancestors, have always been proud of my Cherokee heritage. I have been studying Cherokee history and genealogy for a long time and I am interested in anything Cherokee, whether it involves the historical Cherokee Nation or the Cherokee people of today. I have been fortunate to have been mentored in Cherokee history and genealogical methods by David Cornsilk and the late Jerri Chasteen and I hope to pass on what I have learned to others. I adhere to the Standards for Sound Genealogical Practices and believe one should only claim what they can prove through solid historical documentation."

Wasn't that the Crowd funding bill? I thought that it passed.

Crowdfunding is still being held up by the SEC while millions more lose their jobs. It will do nothing to help high potential, job creating startups that need to raise larger amounts. I personally believe it is unconstitutional to restrict investments on the basis of wealth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/business/smallbusiness/why-the-sec-is-likely-to-miss-its-deadline-to-write-crowdfunding-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

See Wikipedia SEC Regulation D non accredited investors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_D_(SEC)

Rep Patrick McHenry NC sponsored the bill in the house. Scott Brown was the Senate Sponsor. The final bill was cobbled together from about 4 other bills. The house bill would have allowed companies like ours to raise up to $10k from non-accredited investors. So the pols chant "middle class" while they continue to screw the working public. And the financial industry maintained its stranglehold on investing thanks to Harry Reid and company. Scott did what he could to get something passed.

To "binderful of ...." : One more try to communicate with a person with comprehension difficulties. Another reader kindly inquired about securities laws in general. Instead of Wiki, here is the same info straight from the SEC. http://www.sec.gov/answers/regd.htm

And no - I don't want to raise money on the /iternet for fear of attracting a bunch of wacko shareholders.

The message is clear. We can keep regulating the economy into oblivion while we let proven criminals escape with minor fines and no jail time or we can some to our senses and let the free markets return America to its former greatness.

Yes, there will be fraud on the Internet as there is in daily business, but stopping crowdfunders from creating jobs with unreasonable regulations makes as much sense as trying to prevent auto fatalities by outlawing all automobiles.

The most amazing thing about the stupidity of the average American voter is recognizing that half of them are even dumber than the average.

ya Bill: the sky is falling and Scott Brown is a misunderstood brain surgeon with a barncoat.

It might be too funny for words because, and this is kind of important, McConnell never said those words. You really need to stop getting all of your news from Daily Kos. His actual quote, in context was this:

"It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him."

So not only did he NOT say that he wanted the President to fail, he specifically said that he did NOT want the President to fail.

He made those remarks earlier in the interview. When asked what he meant by "The single most important thing we want to achieve is FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA TO BE A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT." he responded by saying, "It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him."

Your precise comment was, "I hope you wont forget to send McConnell and his ilk a thank you note for their excellent work in making the Obama Administration a failure." Your implication was that McConnell goal was to make the Obama Administration a failure. It is intellectually dishonest to represent McConnell's remarks as a desire for President Obama to fail, which is what you were doing. You were the one who intentionally or unintentionally omitted an important part of McConnell's comments to change its original meaning, not me. I have nothing to apologize for.

Your comment rated two pinocchios (on a scale of 1 to 4) at the Washington Post. So it wasn't a totally bold-faced lie, but it was false and misleading. I have my own scale from 0 to 10 (0 is a false statement that is known to be false and deliberately repeated in an attempt to discredit; 10 is a true factual statement that can be verified by two or more different sources and is not an opinion). Your statement rates a 4.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

My statement, on the other hand was, "So not only did he NOT say that he wanted the President to fail, he specifically said that he did NOT want the President to fail." I also stated, "It might be too funny for words because, and this is kind of important, McConnell never said those words."

Both statements are true, factual statements that are not an opinion and which can be verified from two or more sources. They rate a 10.

My statement, "You really need to stop getting all of your news from Daily Kos," was hyperbole. It cannot be confirmed or disproved, but it was not a statement of fact.

I will leave it for other readers to draw their conclusions; however, I stand by what I wrote. What I wrote is 100 percent true and verifiable. What you wrote? Not so much.

Quasi, you keep forgetting the rest. That this was after he said if Obama wouldn't meet the Republican's half way.