Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Yip, we still need to elect Democrats today

By

Onward to why Democrats in general on a national basis — Mr. Jacoby.  Yeah, you may want to lick a napkin to get that taste out.  In any case, Jeff Jacoby believes that Americans really don’t like the the elimination of lifetime coverage limits, “free” immunization for children, and the elimination of co-pays for mammograms and other preventive care, going on to complain about “the new law’s requirement that such plans must also cover children who are seriously ill.”  I can’t help but notice that Dick Cheney isn’t a jerk toward gays (his daughter is gay) and that Nancy Reagan supports stem cell research (which may soon cure Alzheimer’s disease, from which her husband President Ronald Reagan suffered).  I don’t know if Mr. Jacoby has children, but even if it would help him come around to see that sick children ought be cured in America, I still won’t wish that his children suffer.

In today’s Globe news and opinion we are reminded that we want Democrats nominating SJC members, how losing the US Senate will result in a committee chair who thinks a Nobel Prize winning economist doesn’t know enough about the economy to be on the Fed, and if we don’t elect folks like Bill Keating, we might lose Speaker Pelosi who has managed to ensure that the US House is always putting out legislation more progressive than the US Senate.

Let’s win the battle of the blogs, but how about you heading over to Act Blue: BMG to drop some coin, then head over to DevalPatrick.com to sign up to do some work today.  Live near Cape and Islands?  Get to work for Bill Keating, pronto.  Live up near Lynne somewheres near the New Hampshire border?  Go north young BMGer to work for the Paul Hodes for Senate campaign.  Let’s get to work.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’d add that even when we’re feeling frustrated about the pace of reform either here in the Commonwealth or nationwide, that we think seriously about the consequences of Republican control. The more seats that Republicans and the Tea Party win in November, the closer the likes of Jim DeMint and Michele Bachmann are to the levers of power.

    <

    p>This is what sends shivers down my spine. I know progressive legislation won’t stand a chance with Republicans who believe that the minimum wage “is an archaic system that never worked,” that climate change is nothing more than “a mantra of the left,” or that seriously compare President Obama to Osama bin Laden.

    <

    p>There are only a few weeks left before Election Day. This year, the choice is stark. The tea-flavored Republicans have moved far to the right, and they threaten not only the accomplishments of this Congress, but the accomplishments of progressive leaders dating back to FDR. Let’s keep pushing for change, and let’s get to work in these days before November 2nd.

  4. why, in the past 10 years the MA SJC made what history may judge to be the most important civil rights decision in almost a half century with Goodridge.  All members of the SJC interpret the law, but we all know dang well that we get different courts with different nominators.

    <

    p>Just a reminder that the majority opinion of Goodridge was written by Margaret Marshall who was appointed to the Court by Bill Weld and nominated Chief Justice by Cellucci.

    <

    p>

    Perhaps that trifecta explains why Republican Senator Richard Shelby has put a hold on Diamond’s appointment to the Fed, pretending that Diamond lacks sufficient experience.

    <

    p>The very article you linked to says Shelby didn’t block the appointment.  And on a different note, the nobel prize he won had nothing to do with unemployment.  It was for analysis of friction in the housing market between buyer and seller.

    <

    p>

    Jeff Jacoby believes …

    <

    p>What he believes versus what you say he believes is irrelevant since he’s not running.  The Democrats who are running, are running away from Obamacare at least if you listen to their messages.

    <

    p>  

    • There does seem to be a relationship:

      <

      p>Per Krugman at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…

      <

      p>

      This year’s Diamond/Mortenson/Pissarides Nobel is for work on search models of unemployment. What’s that? And why does it matter?

      Full disclosure: this is not an area I know as well as I should. But I think I know enough to give a quick read.

      So, this line of research concerns the fact that many markets, and above all the labor market, don’t fit the classic supply-and-demand paradigm, in which prices quickly rise or fall so as to ensure that everyone who wants to buy finds someone willing to sell and vice versa. Instead, the labor market, or the housing market, is one in which heterogeneous sellers confront heterogeneous buyers, and it takes time and effort to find appropriate matches. That’s why the unemployment rate isn’t zero at “full employment”; it’s why structural unemployment is an issue.

      This year’s Nobel is for economists who worked out the implications of this observation, both for empirical observation and for policy.

Archives