Tuesday, January 19, 2010

And the lights all went out in MA

Well, I'm singing Bee Gees tonight. What were you THINKING Massachusetts? I guess you don't want affordable Health care or consumer protection or a regulated Wall Street or a recovering economy or a safer planet or a cleaner planet or a fairer planet. What were you THINKING?!! You all seemed pretty nice, smart people the other weekend. You seemed to appreciate the Kennedy legacy of service and compassion for those less able to fend for themselves. You seem to honor substance and experience over instant-soup variety style and glamor. You never struck me as the kind of folk who would be fooled by malicious and partisan sound-bites. I can't believe YOU were ever taken in by those traiterous "Swift Boat" liars and scamps. So....what were you THINKING?????

Only connect, my friends! 
Cheers, 
Charles Shaughnessy

9 comments:

  1. So just curious you do not support the election of Scott Brown? I'm just curious. Your the greastest!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not so much that I don't "like" Mr. Brown or know much about him; it's that sadly, these days, one has to be Partisan because there are bigger things on the agenda ( like Health Care for all,) and the Republicans are using these local elections to build an obstructionist block against EVERYTHING the President wants to do for our country.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Charlie, it wasn't the Republicans who got Scott Brown elected, it was the Independents and the disgruntled Democrats. The polls are showing that the people 1)wanted to send a message to Washington about the corruption, bribery and back-room deals 2)HATE the health care bill(not reform, but the actual bill itself)and 3)are concerned about national security in light of the 9/11 trials. That doesn't sound like swiftboating scamps..it sounds like good old common sense. They used the power of the ballot box to send their message. The fact that it happened in Massachusetts, of all places, should tell you just how bad it is.
    The big block to "what the President wants to do", is his own little self. He's the one who slammed Hillary and McCain in the debates because they wanted insurance mandates and tax on Cadillac plans. He's the one who is ON TAPE saying he won't let lobbyists dictate policy, that he was an advocate of single payer/public option, that he wanted to buy drugs from Canada to save us money, that he wasn't going to make back-room deals and would instead put the negotiations on CSpan. It was Rahm Emanuel who pressured Reid into making those obscene deals with Nelson and Landrieu. If the people are mad, they have a right to be. It's not about "death panels" and abortion anymore...it's about his LIES.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Charlie I think you are absolutely right about this. Scott needs to make time for more important issues. Scott Brown needs to talk about what he should do for people with disabilities. He should talk more about what he stands for in the public eye.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Republicans are building an "obstruction block"? With that, I have to disagree. Our country is at a stand still because no one is willing to compromise. Democrats think they're right, Republicans think they're right. No one can see both sides of an issue, and THAT is the problem. No one needs to choose sides, only use common sense. The politicians need to keep the people they are representing in mind, and they need to do it fairly, not by trying to pass bills that give their (and only their) constituents gratuitous amounts of money. Politics is becoming less and less about representation and more about kickbacks and approval ratings. It's a bit ridiculous.

    And maybe, everything the President "wants" to do for our country is not what we want him to do. That's ultimately what matters, am I right?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello! Love your work and respect people's freedom of speech for certain. I understand Massachussett's already having healthcare in place. This country is so large, and each state individually governed, yet part of the whole, making it difficult to come up with a "plan" for everyone. Also, despite anyone's desires or wants for this country, it is the People of the Country, not one President, Senator or Congressman that need to be heard. Regardless of what the "Administration" or anyone else wants for us, it is the People that put them there in office, and eventually will put someone else there. Otherwise, we would have a monarchy or dictatorship. I for one, do not wish my healthcare to be micromanaged. Accessible, definitely. Keep up the dialogue and good work!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually I think this is kind of interesting. I like to see where different people come from in terms of their views. On one side, like how you feel some people think it was a bad idea for Massachusetts to elect a republican into office...but I heard they were actually in the midst of testing out a Health care plan that would be similar to the one we're trying to endeavor, and one that's similar to Canada's health system. But the people of Massachusetts didn't like it, which is why they elected a republican into office. So you could say that they don't want nationalized Health Care, when really we don't know that. I mean for the most part Americans want everyone to have health care, but the way to approach it just didn't make sense to them. It's also really hard to rush into that kind of thing. I also think that it takes time to decide if you like something or not, and that they should've waited a little longer before giving up on their "beta testing" so to speak. I mean I've experienced nationalized health care a few times abroad, and after having the same bad experience (literally the same) I didn't like it, but I think with the right plan and the appropriate well thought out bill then it would be pretty good. But I don't think we should scold Massachusetts for something that they tried and decided that they didn't like. I feel like they probably didn't want to give up on it completely, but find a different solution to the problem. I think before we actually rush into something we should have more "beta testing" going on for a longer amount of time and then let the American people decide for themselves whether they like it or not.

    With my experiences in Europe (Italy to be specific) it made me not want to go through nationalized medicine not because I don't want to see people be covered, but because I didn't like how it was ran. The doctors weren't in a big rush to see patients, and when I was having a really bad allergic reaction to the point where I was swelling up and getting hives I still had to wait at least three hours in the emergency room to be seen. Then they misdiagnosed me. I mean I understand there's a language barrier difference, but the person spoke English well and understood the words allergic, and reaction. So I took the medicine they gave me and I got an allergic reaction from that too. So then my mom got sick and we went to another hospital. They misdiagnosed her there and didn't even suggest anything about what was going on with my situation. So then, another hospital (and several hundred dollars later) and after spending all day in the ER room yet again the doctors finally came to the conclusion that it was strep throat, but was so bad it was almost scarlet fever. Strep throat isn't a hard thing to diagnose, you do a strep test and that's it. So obviously I'm a little bias as to how it works, but maybe if we come up with a good enough plan more people will want to embrace it. However, right now it just doesn't seem good enough. We don't want to do a second rate job when we are role models for the world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I know that this blog has been dormant for a while. But does anyone else find it a bit curious that people were getting all excited about a Republican being elected to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate, and Scott Brown has voted on the side of the Democrats on several key issues? He has come out against the Tea Party folks, and he is voting based upon the needs of the people he represents. Brown's election is another example of why people should vote for the candidate, not for whoever a political party runs for office (and trust me, any politician from Massachusetts who accuses a Red Sox icon of being a Yankee lover does not deserve to be elected to any office, regardless of their political affiliation).

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was really surprised that they elected a republican. It has been a democratic state for so long. Why did they keep Ted Kennedy in so long then if they wanted a republican. This made no sense to me. It just feels like the voters threw out all that JFK and Bobby and Ted did.

    ReplyDelete

Charles Shaughnessy on YouTube

Loading...

Followers

Charles Shaughnessy visitors

Total Pageviews