Yes, of course I support Niki Tsongas. But regardless of who you’re for, it’s impossible not to declare Niki the winner of this debate.
Ogo had a couple of real howlers tonight. First, he treated us to the continuation of his Jim Idon’tknowski comedy routine on the SCHIP veto; Sun reporter Matt Murphy made him look very silly. But also, Ogo said in response to a question asking what, specifically, he would do about the gang violence problems in Lowell and Lawrence, that he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Uh, what? And when asked which presidential candidate’s health care plan was closest to his own, he said he doesn’t support FEMA. Uh, what?? That answer, in addition to being absurd, gave Niki an opening of which she took full advantage: she pointed out that state-based programs like the Massachusetts program (which Ogo said he preferred to any federal plan) are completely dependent on federal money and federal programs to survive — without them, she said, the MA plan and others like it “will fall flat on its face.”
And one more thing on health care: Ogo said that he does not support universal health care. OK, Jim — which Americans would you suggest go without?
The Social Security discussion was another rough patch for Ogo. In response to a question whose premise was that — as everyone knows — sooner or later something will have to be done to avoid the program’s going bankrupt, Ogo just said he won’t raise the retirement age, he won’t raise the tax, and he won’t cut benefits. So, uh, what’s your plan, Jim? No answer — because he doesn’t have one. And then he claimed that Tsongas wants to raise the retirement age — which she doesn’t, as she said quite forcefully in rebuttal. She has already said that she would look at raising the cap on the payroll tax, which is both the fairest and the most politically feasible way of addressing the issue (IMHO).
So Ogo had a bad night. And Niki was, as she was at NECN last week, solid and confident. She did well; Ogo did not.
After Ogonowski pontificated “I will not cut benefits, I will not raise taxes, and I will not raise the retirement age” with respect to Social Security, and after he said he would continue the war in Iraq to an indefinite conclusion, and after he said he would “sustain the Bush tax cuts” – wasn’t it Patrick Murphy that called him on it – (paraphrasing)”how can you stand there and say you’ll continue the war and provide tax cuts to the wealthy, all the while robbing the Social Security Trust fund of $200B per year to feed your habits?”
<
p>
It is about time a political candidate speaks the truth, and it isn’t all that surprising that it came from the youngest candidate in the group.
who asked that. Good for him for holding Og’s feet to the fire. It was indeed refreshing.
1) Vote to override
2) Vote to uphold
3) Know that the veto probably won’t be overriden and make sure to craft a bill that makes sure the 12 Million Kids don’t go uninsured. Jim Ogonowski would be focused in Congress right now on Number 3. There are not only two options. Jim is trying to show and showed this night effectively (I was there, didn’t dare try to live blog đŸ˜‰ ).
<
p>
In addition as I will be posting on RMG shortly Michael J. Astrue the Social Security Commissioner has conclusively said that there is nothing under section 301, which is the watered down version of identification, that would prevent an illegal immigrant from being positively identified as such and denied benefits.
<
p>
The section that “clearly” states that no illegal immigrant would be allowed to receive benefits.
<
p>
So David the Social Security Administration agrees with me and Jim, not you. They would be in charge of enforcing this.
<
p>
Put back the positive ID requirements.
will be caught in the bureaucratic nightmare that ensues, as predicted by Sen. Grassley (R – Iowa)?
Ogo seemed to give the impression that this could all be done QUICKER than the override in two weeks. Am I the only one who though they heard him say that? That if he were in Congress now he could magically make it happen?
<
p>
Or am I crazy?
Congress is Broken because they should have been working on this immediately upon the veto, and if he were in Congress TODAY that is what he’d be doing.
<
p>
To Charley’s point it is the Democratic Congress who wanted to create a crisis. Not Jim Ogonowski. He wants to go to Washington to fix what is broken.
<
p>
Oh and here is my post on why Jim Ogonowski is right on SCHIP and Niki Tsongas is wrong. Enjoy the part where the Commissioner of the Social Security Adminstration admits that section 301 is not adequate to stop illegal aliens from receiving SCHIP benefits. Section 301 is a hole large enough to drive a Mack Truck through.
A Bush appointee against SCHIP. You don’t say? Wow, that’s deserving of a post.
You crack me up, dude. If Bush doesn’t veto, no crisis. He’s not the king, you know.
<
p>
Btw, if you think you understand eligibility stuff without a law degree and years of experience, you are kidding yourself. Grassley’s writing the freakin’ bill.
<
p>
Furthermore, you and your guy are still avoiding the question: Up or down on the current law? If the answer is no, Congress doesn’t all say, “Hey, let’s hand this off to Ogonowski to rewrite — he’s a hay farmer, and seems like a sharp fella who knows what time it is.” No — it just doesn’t pass this session, and kids who now are covered lose their coverage. You down with that, Eabo?
with the current system in Congress that makes your prediction come true Charley. Jim Ogonowski believes that system should be changed. Niki Tsongas believes in the current system that produces grid-lock and risks children’s health. When the veto was issued Congress should have begun work on a Plan B. To not do so is irresponsible and you know it. You down with that, Charley?
The veto was irresponsible. Even Ogo thinks Bush vetoed it for the wrong reason. Congress passed a bill by large bipartisan majorities, and the Constitution gives them the authority to override his veto. Voting yea or nay on veto overrides is an important part of the job.
<
p>
But Jim Idon’tknowski is afraid of it. He won’t level with the people of MA-05. He won’t tell them what he’d do on what may well be the winner’s first vote.
<
p>
He is therefore unworthy of the office. Full stop.
You mean irresponsible like spending more money than you have irresponsible?
<
p>
Or do you mean Nanny goes AWOL irresponsible?
Congress has been in session for eight months. If it were important to actually get a bill passed, a bill that would not draw a veto would have been passed months ago.
<
p>
Instead, a bill designed to draw a veto is passed a the last minute. The veto allows the issue to become a campaign issue in 2008.
<
p>
The Democrats in Congress doen’t give a flying crap about all the sad eyed kids in the TV commericals. They just want a campiagn issue.
<
p>
They got it, so good for them. But to pretend that there isn’t a manufactured crisis is to be willfully blind.
… and back and forth among members that resulted in the bipartisan support that the bill enjoys?
EaBo, did you ever see the comedy central coverage of President Bush’s State of the Union addresses? The comedians comment on Bush’s words as they come out of his mouth. Given that they’re usually so absurd, conflicted and tangentially tuthful – the results are funny and strike a chord.
<
p>
Well, you’re the comedy central part of the Ogonowski campaign. Ogi’s positions are so confusing and inane, you have to explain what he meant to say word for word. But, EaBo, can you accompany him to the House floor? Or will they do to him what you did to BMG at NECN? Will you be there to remind him that he has to vote yes or no when the bell goes off? Even a fifth grade Social Studies student knows this.
<
p>
Ogi is so clueless as far as the important issues of the day go and how our government works, he has to attack Tsongas. He doesn’t have anything else credible to talk about. Maybe Ogi should step back and let you run. One of you might be able to run and talk at the same time.
Jim articulated those positions himself very well tonight. I was there. Any neutral observer viewing that debate would say the same thing. Jim was comfortable in his positions and forceful. Looking at Niki when he was talking (Which you wouldn’t have seen on TV) she was caught off guard by the Social Security Commissioners comments. Jim offered plans it wasn’t all about attacking Niki Tsongas.
<
p>
P.S. I’m only one man, someone has to fight the progressive netroots to get the truth out. Might as well be me in this race.
…until you subtract all the disinformation, obfuscations, unthruths etc that you’ve put forth and propagated. You points and your outrages have been debunked so many times that so far you’re in the negative, at least on BMG.
That was my post, FYI
…just how much is the Ogonowski campaign paying you to come here and post your horse manure? Or do you, like Ogonowski, put in a full day’s work in three hours?
Zero. I’m a volunteer. I work a full time job, that’s why you mostly see my posts before 9 and after 6. Sure every once and a while I post during work hours but normally at lunch or such.
no accuses any of the progressive water carriers to be here because they are being paid.
<
p>
EaBo is here and comments on a variety of topics. This election is a hot button issue for him and some others because they live in the district and work on the various campaigns.
<
p>
To accuse him of being some paid blogger for the campaign is a low rent tactic and, quite frankly, beneath you.
…Congress was deadlocked with the President over an health care issue. And then a Special Election was held and a new Congressman, Jim Ogonowski, with no experience in health care and no legislative experience and just 2 days on the job, crafted a bill that made sure that 12 Million Kids did not go uninsured.
<
p>
And they all lived happily ever after.
And even if the Ogo version was sent up, Bush would just veto it again so there is no way in hell anyone is re-crafting this bill to fit Ogo’s specs becasue it would yield the same results. Ogo’s position on this is so far in the minority of Congress it is beyond irrelevant. Why should anyone re-craft a bill just to get Ogo on board? They wont, cause no one on Capitol Hill gives a crap what Ogo thinks, they only care if he’s voting yes or no. If the override fails, SCHIP is done.
<
p>
Ogo can be for a re-crafted SCHIP all he wants, but re-crafted SCHIP will probably never come to a vote, the only option is the current law, up or down. By the fact Ogo would not vote for the override, he is against SCHIP.
A wide majority of Members of Congress and Senators, and the President would support a stop gap funding to make sure that those that are currently covered don’t go without coverage. The bill could be very simple. Here I’ll write it.
<
p>
“Authorization and funding for the SCHIP program as defined in USC###### shall be extended at current FY07 levels for the first three months of FY08.”
<
p>
There done, simple now is it. The president isn’t vetoing that. And it gives time for a new SCHIP bill that the President will sign to be created.
<
p>
I know this isn’t how “congress works” but perhaps it should work that way.
Ogonowski said he would stress education and economic opportunities to give potential gang bangers something to hope for outside of gang life. The tax cuts were a small passage in a minute answer, a passage to show that the tax cuts help drive the economy. Nice spin though David.
That’s not how it came out, EaBo, and you know it. It sounded like he was going to give tax cuts to kids in gangs. If he were ready for prime time, he never would have said that. And maybe it would have been good if he actually had something to say that was relevant to gang violence — a real issue that matters to MA-05.
Jim said that the states should decide what is best for their individual states for healthcare like Massachusetts did. He said that a large government run program like universal single payer coverage would end up failing us like FEMA failed us. That was the whole context. Nice try again.
you can’t rewrite what he said. He said what he said, and it sounded ludicrous. It was almost as bad as his hilariously incoherent FEMA op-ed in the Eagle-Trib. The only reason that one was worse was because it was in writing and therefore should have been edited before someone hit “send.”
That is EXACTLY what he said. I was 50 feet from him. I was there. That is what he said. I’ll find a video tomorrow and transcribe it for you if you like but it’s what he said. I was there.
I watched it live. I had a better view than you did. đŸ˜‰
…and the large, government run occupation in Iraq? Clearly, he’s not against all big government. My tax dollars are being sent to Washington and the Military and the war are just wasting most money, over a half TRILLION dollars, and according to David Patraeus it isn’t making the US safer.
<
p>
Clearly, Jim has faith in some huge government-run cash drains; he just chooses which ones to assail and which ones to not to assail based on political convenience. If he’s for privatization, why not just turn Iraq completely over to Blackwater?
That part of the debate was played on NPR this morning: Jim sounded like he didn’t know what to say about healthcare and changed the subject to FEMA without any reason, which sounded just ridiculous. Murphy called him on it too.
<
p>
That clip was the only part I heard, I was watching the GOP presidential debate last night, and didn’t know where to watch the MA-5 debate… Is there anywhere online with the full video? or at least a download of the audio?
The shock, oh the shock.
…..taking bits and pieces of Tsongas’ statements and snippets from her FEC filings and spinning them in questionable ways for weeks. You have no moral authority on the “snip and spin” issue.
…..now – it was FEMA that failed us and not Brownie and the “heck of a job” that he was doing? I love how a “broken” congress is the democrats fault because of what they do but a “broken” FEMA is attributable to the fact that it is a “large government run program” and not to the buffoons to whom the current president gave the keys to the agency.
… at making sure that agencies that work well are ‘reformed’ in such a way as to fail us. Bush himself knew that FEMA was working great when he was governor of Texas.
<
p>
http://www.slate.com…
<
p>
Niki Tsongas said to the Lowell Sun early in the campaign that the retirement age would have to be looked at. The Lowell Sun stands by that assertion. When it was shown she was losing among seniors she changed her mind. It is that simple. The Concord Coalition of which she was instrumental in forming, has held the same position. Niki is pandering.
Dude, the one who’s pandering is the one who refuses to take any steps to do anything about Social Security. Murphy called Ogo’s ass on the carpet on that one and made him look ridiculous. You can’t just say “I won’t cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or raise taxes.” The numbers just don’t work. So, I guess the Social Security Fairy going to take care of it?
I would imagine that an organization dedicated to Social Security might have a good idea who they are endorsing….and it’s not Ogonowski with his make believe “solutions”.
There’s a very odd irony to having a Republican run against the partisan rancor in Congress or with claims to want to make Congress work.
<
p>
The first odd irony is the previous years of Republican majorities have witnessed amazing levels of corruption. Rep. Cunningham and Rep. Ney come to mind. So too Abramoff. But there is also a sort of legal graft with lobbyists writing bills and Republicans insisting that companies that play with them not contribute to Democrats. Under Republicans, Congress may have worked — but in a slimy way.
<
p>
The second irony is the extraordinary partisanship of the Republicans both in majority and minority. Bills are brought to the floor of the House under rules that allow or forbid amendment. (That’s why control of the Rules Committee is so important in the House.) Under the Republican majority, strict rules became the norm. Delay and Hastert and their gang kept Democratic proposals and amendments off the floor and brought bills to a vote before they could even be read.
<
p>
The new Democratic majority initially wanted to run things without strict rules. They were rewarded with Republican gameplaying and partisan tactics to slow down House proceedings. Republicans filed large numbers of frivolous amendments.
<
p>
With this history, it just defies logic to imagine that any Republican anywhere could say he or she was going to “fix” Congress when the historical record is that Republicans have not only broken Congress but are making efforts to keep it broken.
<
p>
Why would anyone who cared about the functioning of Congress want to increase the size of that gang?
If the past SurveyUSA polls are any indication, Keller talked about the last poll 5 days before the election. With the polling taking place the two days before. That’s why these last two debates were very important. Ogonowski seemed to lay and egg, hopefully we’ll see something tomorrow.
The discussion on “amnesty” vs. “path to citizenship” simplifies a complex issue, and among the complexities is the fate of 12 million people. Treating that group as one does not do the subject justice. There is probably general agreement that those who are criminals (beyond the violation of immigration status) should be treated as such, and then deported. There may even be agreement that those who are not productive and are not attempting to become so, should also be deported. But the majority are here to work, but if they are avoiding paying taxes by performing as independent contractors, the employer is equally culpable in this crime, and should face an equal penalty. The remainder, who are both productive and contribute their fair share to the public economy, should have the means to continue, although not without some penalty in the process. It is this latter group, who may well be the majority of the 12 million, that certainly should be given the “path to citizenship”.
<
p>
But none of this addresses the reasons why we got to this point in the first place, nor does anything to correct the situation. Candidate Murphy made an astute comment during the debate, that our current “free trade” pacts only incentivize deprived workers in other countries to seek work here, gaining “fair” wages and healthcare options. He proposes modifying any trade agreement to require similar benefits for workers in other countries that we contract with, thereby “lifting all boats”. Although the multinational companies will not enjoy the economic benefits of exploited labor (and will certainly have their lobbyists fight such trade pacts), the workers of the world will prosper, and our international trade deficit will be brought under control.
<
p>
Should we be surprised that such intelligent discussion of the issue comes from outside the major parties? Or is it because they are both really the same?
Murphy had some good moments in last night’s debate. But I am really sick of this notion that the two major parties are the same. They’re not, and claiming that they are is a real disservice to Democrats who are working hard to change things for the better. For an independent to claim that Democrats are no better than Republicans is a self-serving distortion — a cheap talking point like any other.
Well, when it comes to trade pacts, it is difficult to find the difference. The proof is in the deeds, not the words.
albeit an important one. It’s not the be-all and end-all of politics.
OK, let’s put trade pacts aside, but recognize that it came up in a discussion of immigration.
<
p>
Let’s look at the War in Iraq. From today’s report:
WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats have put on the back burner legislation ordering troops home from Iraq and turned their attention to war-related proposals that Republicans are finding hard to reject.
<
p>
The legislative agenda marks a dramatic shift for party leaders who vowed repeated votes to end combat and predicted Republicans would eventually join them. But with Democrats still lacking enough votes to bring troops home, the party runs the risk of concluding its first year in control of Congress with little to show for its tough anti-war rhetoric.
…
<
p>
There’s a $190B request on the table to continue funding of this war. That is both a war and an economic issue. Unfortunately, the “powers that be” don’t seem capable of addressing this. The Republicans can probably be assigned the majority of the blame, but the inability of the Democrats to not cave into Bush is inexcusable. Not exactly the “same”, but the result is.
declaring a winner doesn’t make it so. i know a lot of people left that auditorium or turned off their radios thinking that murphy was the only one who answered the questions and who challenged the non-answers. he was articulate, forceful, and from looking at the ever-smiling faces of the “front-runners”, was the only one who was serious about the issues. maybe that’s because he’s the only one who lives and works hard like most of us.
He’s a promising guy. Dick is right about his Bobby Kennedy shtick — he’s trying too hard with that, and it’s unnecessary and distracting. Patrick should just be Patrick. He won’t win this one, but I’m glad he’s in the race, and I look forward to his next one.
I do. I’m his brother. This was my response to Dick Howe:
<
p>
Dan Murphy said,
<
p>
on October 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
<
p>
i disagree with Dick about Patrick. Patrick’s words were his own. The cadence of his opening and closing was his own, written into his remarks. Words arranged on the page have an inherent cadence to them.
<
p>
As for his “accent”, it’s no different than mine; we grew up here and some people can hear it, fine. If you’re talking about his Kennedyesque good looks, fine, fault my mum and dad. But don’t fault the guy for making the most moving speech of the night, especially when, very tellingly, that is your only criticism.
<
p>
It is indeed also your only criticism.
<
p>
Talk to Dan O’Connor, above, with whom Patrick works. He can help you distinguish a Lowell accent from a Cape Cod Kennedy one.
<
p>
all the best