<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Immediate thoughts on Scott Brown&#8217;s election</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anothersunnyday.com/2010/01/19/1481/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anothersunnyday.com/2010/01/19/1481</link>
	<description>it&#039;s a good life, end of discussion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:46:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://anothersunnyday.com/2010/01/19/1481/comment-page-1#comment-5275</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:21:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anothersunnyday.com/?p=1481#comment-5275</guid>
		<description>Yeah, but I want a representative who&#039;s not simply resigned to same-sex marriage as a political done-deal at home, but who&#039;s committed to it and who, if push were to come to shove, would support it nationally by opposing the DOMA!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, but I want a representative who&#8217;s not simply resigned to same-sex marriage as a political done-deal at home, but who&#8217;s committed to it and who, if push were to come to shove, would support it nationally by opposing the DOMA!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mad</title>
		<link>http://anothersunnyday.com/2010/01/19/1481/comment-page-1#comment-5272</link>
		<dc:creator>Mad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anothersunnyday.com/?p=1481#comment-5272</guid>
		<description>BTW, it looks like Brown actually may support same-sex marriage to some limited extent (calling it a &quot;settled issue&quot; in his home state) and women&#039;s &quot;reproductive rights&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BTW, it looks like Brown actually may support same-sex marriage to some limited extent (calling it a &#8220;settled issue&#8221; in his home state) and women&#8217;s &#8220;reproductive rights&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://anothersunnyday.com/2010/01/19/1481/comment-page-1#comment-5263</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anothersunnyday.com/?p=1481#comment-5263</guid>
		<description>Funny you say that. I was reading an editorial in the (editorially conservative) &lt;i&gt;Boston Herald&lt;/i&gt; tonight that suggested that Democrats need to emulate the Republicans&#039; tendency to focus on personality and &quot;connecting&quot; with voters, rather than the Democrats&#039; tendency to speak to issues.

I disagree with that assessment—some combination of the two is necessary—but yes, the race had a lot to do with personalities, and in the end, Martha Coakley&#039;s personality just never seemed conducive to establishing a connection with voters. Even if Coakley and the DSCC had focused more on defining Brown in terms of issues, he was still so much more likable and personable than Coakley. She was a really miserable candidate—and I say this as someone who voted for her.

As for blaming the Republicans for obstructionism, we should&#039;ve been doing that all along. I heard on NPR the other day that Republicans have used the threat of filibustering on nearly every piece of major legislation, and something like 70% of every substantial piece of legislation considered in the Senate—an historically unprecedented level of obstruction! The Democrats have a message problem and for all of Obama&#039;s declared willingness to work with Republicans, he really needs to realize that it&#039;s not going to happen, that Republicans are going to continue to obstruct his agenda, and that if he doesn&#039;t start spreading that message, that he&#039;s done for.

In terms of health care reform, I&#039;ve always had trouble believing that it&#039;s not a popular effort. Well, let me rephrase that. The current bill, with all its back-room deals and sellouts to the industry lobbyists, isn&#039;t popular. But the split between those who support and oppose the bill is just about even, and studies show that when people are told specifics about the bill, their level of support actually goes up.

My personal theory is that if Obama hadn&#039;t let Congress muck this up, and if he&#039;d proposed—and fought for—a much more liberal reform agenda (including, at the least, a viable public option), health care reform would&#039;ve been wildly popular. The more conservative and watered-down this bill got, the more unpopular it became.

Overall, just about every politician in each party is in hock to the special interests and the corporations. Until that changes (and it seems doubtful it ever will, especially with the latest Supreme Court ruling on &quot;free speech&quot;), our government and its legislation will &lt;i&gt;never&lt;/i&gt; be of the people but, rather, will benefit almost exclusively the monied interests paying the politicians.

Finally, and most importantly, sorry I&#039;ve been terrible returning your calls. I&#039;ll call you soon, I promise! :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny you say that. I was reading an editorial in the (editorially conservative) <i>Boston Herald</i> tonight that suggested that Democrats need to emulate the Republicans&#8217; tendency to focus on personality and &#8220;connecting&#8221; with voters, rather than the Democrats&#8217; tendency to speak to issues.</p>
<p>I disagree with that assessment—some combination of the two is necessary—but yes, the race had a lot to do with personalities, and in the end, Martha Coakley&#8217;s personality just never seemed conducive to establishing a connection with voters. Even if Coakley and the DSCC had focused more on defining Brown in terms of issues, he was still so much more likable and personable than Coakley. She was a really miserable candidate—and I say this as someone who voted for her.</p>
<p>As for blaming the Republicans for obstructionism, we should&#8217;ve been doing that all along. I heard on NPR the other day that Republicans have used the threat of filibustering on nearly every piece of major legislation, and something like 70% of every substantial piece of legislation considered in the Senate—an historically unprecedented level of obstruction! The Democrats have a message problem and for all of Obama&#8217;s declared willingness to work with Republicans, he really needs to realize that it&#8217;s not going to happen, that Republicans are going to continue to obstruct his agenda, and that if he doesn&#8217;t start spreading that message, that he&#8217;s done for.</p>
<p>In terms of health care reform, I&#8217;ve always had trouble believing that it&#8217;s not a popular effort. Well, let me rephrase that. The current bill, with all its back-room deals and sellouts to the industry lobbyists, isn&#8217;t popular. But the split between those who support and oppose the bill is just about even, and studies show that when people are told specifics about the bill, their level of support actually goes up.</p>
<p>My personal theory is that if Obama hadn&#8217;t let Congress muck this up, and if he&#8217;d proposed—and fought for—a much more liberal reform agenda (including, at the least, a viable public option), health care reform would&#8217;ve been wildly popular. The more conservative and watered-down this bill got, the more unpopular it became.</p>
<p>Overall, just about every politician in each party is in hock to the special interests and the corporations. Until that changes (and it seems doubtful it ever will, especially with the latest Supreme Court ruling on &#8220;free speech&#8221;), our government and its legislation will <i>never</i> be of the people but, rather, will benefit almost exclusively the monied interests paying the politicians.</p>
<p>Finally, and most importantly, sorry I&#8217;ve been terrible returning your calls. I&#8217;ll call you soon, I promise! <img src='http://anothersunnyday.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mad</title>
		<link>http://anothersunnyday.com/2010/01/19/1481/comment-page-1#comment-5259</link>
		<dc:creator>Mad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anothersunnyday.com/?p=1481#comment-5259</guid>
		<description>Also, I have the same feeling that I had after Lieberman defeated Lamont.  &quot;But these are *my* people.  How could they betray me like this?&quot;

Also, I miss you!!  I&#039;m visiting Boston in March but we should talk before then :D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, I have the same feeling that I had after Lieberman defeated Lamont.  &#8220;But these are *my* people.  How could they betray me like this?&#8221;</p>
<p>Also, I miss you!!  I&#8217;m visiting Boston in March but we should talk before then <img src='http://anothersunnyday.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mad</title>
		<link>http://anothersunnyday.com/2010/01/19/1481/comment-page-1#comment-5258</link>
		<dc:creator>Mad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:49:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anothersunnyday.com/?p=1481#comment-5258</guid>
		<description>The #1 mistake that was made was about letting this be about personalities.  The ads that tied Brown to the national Republicans just called him a Republican a lot, but didn&#039;t emphasize his actual views on the issues (except health care - which most people do NOT support!)

They should have been bringing up the environment, abortion, torture, and same-sex marriage.  People thought Scott Brown was more reasonable than a typical Republican; he isn&#039;t, really.

On the plus side, now we can blame the Republicans in the Senate for obstructionism as a reason we can&#039;t get things done, and not look like idiots.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The #1 mistake that was made was about letting this be about personalities.  The ads that tied Brown to the national Republicans just called him a Republican a lot, but didn&#8217;t emphasize his actual views on the issues (except health care &#8211; which most people do NOT support!)</p>
<p>They should have been bringing up the environment, abortion, torture, and same-sex marriage.  People thought Scott Brown was more reasonable than a typical Republican; he isn&#8217;t, really.</p>
<p>On the plus side, now we can blame the Republicans in the Senate for obstructionism as a reason we can&#8217;t get things done, and not look like idiots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.345 seconds -->

