AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Democratic Party finds itself in an unusual position this election season. For the first time in three decades, Democrats are on the outside looking in at State House power.
It’s not as dire for Maine Democrats as 1929 to 1933, when all 31 members of the Maine Senate were Republican, and the GOP held dominant advantages in the House. But the 2010 election that yielded GOP majorities in both chambers of the Legislature and placed Republican Paul LePage in the governor’s office changed this year’s campaign dynamic.
“We are strong but still evolving from a shakeup in 2010,” U.S. Senate candidate Cynthia Dill, a Democratic state senator from Cape Elizabeth, said during an Oct. 17 meeting with the BDN editorial board.
Despite minimal support from the national party, whose strategy appears to involve staying out of independent candidate Angus King’s path to the U.S. Senate, Dill said she’s “really proud of the Maine Democratic Party.” She expressed acceptance of the state party’s focus on legislative races this year. “I understand that we want some sort of balance and check on the Republican Party in Maine,” she said.
However, some political observers suggest that an emphasis on countering LePage’s conservative game plan leaves Maine Democrats open to the same complaint that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney leveled against President Barack Obama in Monday’s debate: “Attacking me is not an agenda.”
Michael Cuzzi, a former Democratic campaign strategist who manages the Portland office of VOX Global, a Washington, D.C.-based public affairs consulting firm, rejects that argument.
“Being in the minority heightens the intensity with which Democrats are campaigning,” he said. “But I don’t think it changes their agenda. They are knocking on doors and promoting their vision for helping the middle class. The policy message hasn’t changed.”
But who they deliver it to has changed, according to Frank O’Hara, a speechwriter and former adviser to Gov. Joseph Brennan, a Democrat who served from 1979 to 1987.
“The voters have changed so much during the past 20 years,” O’Hara said. “When I started with the Democrats in the late 1970s, working males in the trades and mills were one of the core constituencies for the party, the working, blue-collar group. A lot of those jobs have gone away. That has created cynicism and anger about government. A lot of that group has gone to the Republicans, which has made Democrats more cautious and defensive about putting out new policies.”
Lee Umphrey, a government relations consultant who served as communications director during Democratic former Gov. John Baldacci’s first term, 2003 to 2007, attributes the change more to a shift on the other end of the political spectrum. The rise of a more conservative movement within the Republican party nationally made its way to Maine in recent years, he said.
As of Oct. 12, voter registration statistics at the Maine secretary of state’s website listed 297,445 active voters registered as Democrats and 258,463 as Republicans. The state has more unenrolled voters — 337,535 — than members of either party.
Four years ago, Democrats held a wider margin, 322,443 to 263,932. The Democrats’ advantage has fluctuated throughout the past 18 years, and not all registered voters in Maine cast ballots for their party’s candidate, but unenrolled voters consistently outnumber political party members. In almost every legislative election from the late 1970s until 2010, Democrats proved more successful at appealing to independent voters.
“Democrats in the last 20 years have widened their middle, while GOP has pulled rightward,” Umphrey said. “That created a polarization that allowed LePage to win. You can see it in [2nd Congressional District candidate Kevin] Raye and [U.S. Senate candidate Charlie] Summers joining a national trend to go right.”
Cuzzi concurs, noting that the Republican sweep of Maine in 2010 was part of a national wave. “It was the ying to the 2008 yang,” he said, referring to the year in which Obama’s election provided coattails for Democratic candidates at the federal and state levels.
O’Hara and Umphrey agree that the recent prolonged hard economic times also contributed to a scenario that made voters more likely to direct fear and anger at the party that had been in power for a long time. LePage capitalized on that angry mood, and played to Maine voters’ tradition of supporting candidates who show an independent streak, to win the Blaine House in 2010, Umphrey said.
“I do think this phenomenon of rural Maine communities losing their economic core, which is a long-term thing, is really frustrating,” O’Hara said. “It makes people mad and frustrated and is a natural reaction to blow it all up.”
Two years later, has that dynamic flipped?
Not in the sense that Democrats have adopted wholesale ideological changes, Cuzzi said. The historically rare status as a minority party means that Democrats don’t find themselves defending state government’s recent actions or inaction. Instead, they can campaign aggressively against legislation passed during the past two years of Republican legislative control.
“The motivation is different this year,” said Ben Grant, who became Maine Democratic Party chairman after the 2010 election. “We saw what total Republican control of Augusta means over the last two years. It means an attack on some of the cherished achievements that make Maine a great place to live. It puts at risk much of the progress we’ve made over the last few decades.”
The clear absence of money in the state budget to fund big new ideas, which in the mode of Dirigo Health have been cornerstones of many past Democratic party campaigns, means that “Democrats are running more on values than on programs this year,” O’Hara said.
As laid out in the Democratic party’s platform, those values include support for same-sex marriage, movement toward health care for all and protection of union rights. Those value statements differ markedly from the Republican Party platform for 2012. Yet both parties assert that they represent Maine’s working people and middle class.
Umphrey said LePage’s tendency to be “boisterous” during the first two years of his governorship provides Democrats with a campaign season target, but he warned that they should be careful not to treat races for legislative seats, which tend to be less partisan contests between neighbors, as referendums on LePage’s personality.
Grant argues that Democrats have focused on LePage’s agenda, not the governor as a person, during the campaign.
“It’s very obvious that the governor has been asked by party leadership to play a very quiet role in this election cycle,” Cuzzi said. “In a lot of key Senate districts, the governor is not a net asset to Republican candidates.”
However, after Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate Libby Mitchell’s distant third-place finish behind LePage and independent candidate Eliot Cutler in 2010, this year’s absence of a Democrat with strong backing from the party could prove detrimental in the long run, Umphrey said.
“I think the party misplayed this election in Maine for not encouraging [Chellie] Pingree or Baldacci to seek the U.S. Senate nomination, then not strongly endorsing Dill,” Umphrey said.
To hold the ideological middle in a state where the GOP is veering right, and independent candidates like King and Cutler have enjoyed success, Democrats must carry on the party loyalty that marked Baldacci’s service in elected office, he said.
Regardless of whether Democrats regain control of the Legislature this year, new leaders will have to emerge before 2014, when a U.S. Senate seat and the governor’s office will be contested.
“Some of the senior members of the Legislature ought to think about bringing it up a notch,” Umphrey said. “That clearing-the-woods process is good for states and for Maine especially.”
Despite the shift in voter demographics, O’Hara said he’s hopeful about the future of the Maine Democratic Party.
“I think that the party needs the reorganization, but there needs to be a shot of new ideas, too,” O’Hara said. “The Republicans are coming with the ‘Let’s change, let’s make it better, let’s change it this way’ approach. The Democrats need to come out with some new ideas as well, and that’s where the work needs to be done.”
Robert Long is a political analyst for the BDN.



“American liberalism today is in an advanced stage of intellectual
decline. Cynical and short sighted interests wrap themselves in the
increasingly tattered mantles of sacred ideas. Liberals are right to
feel that social justice matters, that the poor should have greater
opportunity and that government in a
democratic society cannot remain
indifferent to the existence of great social evils.
But where liberals in America have the freest hand—in states like New
York, California and Illinois—we see incontrovertible evidence that the
policies they choose don’t have the consequences they predict.
California by now should surely be an educational, environmental and
social utopia. New York should be a wonder of glorious liberal
governance. Illinois should be known far and wide as the state that
works.”
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/10/25/news-from-obamas-home-state/
the problem with their approach is that statism doesn’t work
liberals are statists, through and through
their name is ironic misnomer simply because there is not a shred of classic liberalism or libertarianism in the statist policies they prescribe for the rest of us
Liberal ideals work fine in Canada. We need affordable healthcare for everyone, not greedy insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the Hospital Industry squeezing us in a “dysfunctional market,” as even George W. Bush called it.
So we need to strive to be Canada?? Lets just strive to be Europe. God save us from Fools.
Too late: as the article says, you conservatives already are in.
Is Europe a country now? Neat! :P
Ask Sprucie he’s the expert on all things European.
Thanks for the heads up, still learning the names here. ;D
Sure thing. :)
Amen to that larry.
Yep we need to follow the hard right Republican/Tea Party that is leading us to be Mexico instead of Canada.
What kind of Army, Navy and Air Force would Canada need for their own security if they’re southern neighbor were Mexico and the United States did not exist? What would their health care look like with that military bill to pay? It’s not that good now.
That’s the problem with the pastures greener over there approach. Circumstances change outcomes, some weak thinking liberals forget that.
You just can’t stop with the insults, can you?
Canada’s defense spending is around the same as Australia’s. Who is Australia’s supposed protector? Have they been invaded recently? ;)
The “defense” budget of the United States could be halved and would still be larger than the next 4 largest militaries combined and provide for far more than adequate defense. What would our health care look like if we had different priorities is the better hypothetical to ask. :D
Would the United Sates let Australia or any of the other Commonwealth nations be invaded. I doubt it. No doubt that out health care system has huge problems. However folks in Canada waiting years for a hip replacement don’t rave about theirs.
Never minding the desire (which doesn’t exist), what country has the ability to launch an intercontinental invasion? The expanse, isolation and geography of Canada is it’s greatest defense (such as Australia and the US.) The Canadians benefit far more from our economy than our military.
I wouldn’t use Canada as the model for healthcare, though something needs to be done here as you acknowledge – the status quo certainly isn’t working. And though throwing money at problems isn’t a panacea, I’d rather throw it at healthcare than the military industrial complex, which has minimal return on investment.
I agree with most of what you say. If we want affordable healthcare we’ll need to elect some politicians under a far “less” corrupt system. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow these pacts to heavily influence our elections set our democracy back 100 years.
Perhaps, but another construction of that decision finally provided a level playing surface between Business interests and Union interests.
Many, who view all this less emotionally, suggest the Swiss system is worth taking a hard look at.
You need to research your info more. Having family and friends in Canada they all dispute your claims. Their wait time is no different then ours. We cant get in fast unless its an emergency, neither can they. We have to wait weeks maybe months for a hip replacement, unless its an emergency, just like Canada. Only difference is that their drugs and care are way way less expensive then ours. And everyone is entitled to health care paid by all. Not sure where you get your encyclopedia but you need a revised version.
My relatives don’t share your relatives sentiments on the medical system there in Canada. I presently have a realtive with a brain tumor and no surgery date. I didn’t get this info from any ‘encyclopedia’ , I got it from the mouths of those who suffer under the huge burden of tax they pay in Canada for the miserable medical services they have. Hows 15% sales tax suit you?!
Maybe that’s why they have a limited access 4 lane highway from the Calais border to Halifax while we have a flower pot circle and 90 miles of ‘state of the art highway’ (circa 1950) from Calais to Bangor.
Our health care is significantly substandard to other developed countries around the world, including Canada. And i’m sorry your relative is suffering from a brain tumor, the folks here in the US also suffer from their ailments and it takes forever to get seen by a Dr. If in fact there are enough doctors to see anyone. And I would gladly pay 15% sales tax to be able to have healthcare insurance. And the 15% sales tax is not constant. You only pay the tax when you buy something. Some people pay little sales tax and others pay a lot of sales tax. But they all have healthcare.
Specialists in America are second to none, so if one needs brain surgery here, we’re in luck. It’s the primary and emergency care where we lose points. The manner in which we take care of our own health is of course a major issue as well and no government nor health care system is going to fix that.
I agree with you completely!
At the same time, Government intervention has, indeed, limited access to health care on an unintended basis.
How many doc’s no langer accept Medicare patients?
Sen Kennedy got MA higher reimbursement rates than our more rural providers here in ME. Helped him… hurt us!
Why is Penobscot Community Health receive higher reimbursement rates than St. Joseph’s hospital? That’s a component of our out-of-balance health care.
How many providers were owed millions by Prince John Baldacci?
Has anyone done a recent cost/benefit of the millions going into Methadone verses the workability of users?
“The greatest threat to Democracy lurks in the minds of men, well-meaning, but un-knowing”. Alexis D’Toqueville
not sure where your familly lives in Canada, but I have heard the opposite on waiting.
Exactly, West! I told Spruce the same thing. People are dying instead of being cared for. The system is slow, inept and does not cover a lot of things.
The life expectancy in Canada is higher than the US. Infant mortality rate is lower than the US. People in Canada aren’t tied to lousy jobs because of health benefits.
Maybe if we stopped securing the seas and stabilizing 3rd world countries around the world, some of these manufacturers wouldn’t feel so comfortable taking their manufacturing plants out of this country.
The reason for those statistics is that their populace actually takes responsibility for their own health.
Over here, the liberal mindset has always been that NOBODY is responsible for ANYTHING.
Could it possibly be that they don’t have to worry about losing their home to go to the Dr.? That they can afford to do this on a timely basis, before they are terminal?
No.
There population has the ability to take care of their own health due to the existence of their ‘Universal Healthcare System’. Here, unfortunately we have close to 50 million people with no insurance. For our uninsured their only recourse is the ER of the nearest hospital. Those who have insurance get to foot the bill for those who don’t, due to the cost being passed on to the payers.
Don’t confuse Health Insurance with Access to Health Care.
Canadians enjoy the former, but lack the latter.
We shouldn’t confuse them in this country either. All my inlaws live in Canada and all have coverage and they have access. If you wish to cherry pick it can be done on both stides of the border for care. We have to wait for things in this country, even with good insurance. Depends on the problem.
So what you’re saying is that we both have universal health care, eh?
If you take violent, hand gun crime and drug abuse out of the equation, particularly in our Urban Communities, American’s actually live longer.
Good luck with your notion of Fortress America!
Then again, perhaps you’d prefer 100% of Europe and North Africa were speaking German these days?
So the rest of the world is free to set up safe indusrial zones with NO evironmental concerns, No pesky labor concerns, etc. And we are footing the bill for their security at the same time we are loosing our ability to manufacture products we excelled at. Can you imagine us going to war with China and asking for a time out when our troops need new clothing and boots?
Give it up wtsawyer.
The only way these yahoos will ever learn is to experience a total meltdown.
It’s on the way,and the sooner the better.
we have plenty of people here who don’t even get the chance to go on a waiting list for care. It is horrible that in this country today people die or suffer because they don’t have health insurance. Healthcare should be a non profit enterprise in this country not a way for some to make big bucks on people’s suffering.
the United States is committed to defend Australia as part of the ANZUS agreement
*sigh*
Thank you, though you’re missing the point. Both Australia and Canada, though allies we will help if in need, are not dependents of the USA. Our military is not for their defense, it is for ours, at least that was the original intention.
The role of world police, which both parties have adopted as the unquestionable status quo, is one of the major reasons our own health care and infrastructure (not to mention our collective education) is in such a sorry state. We are trying to save the world while the homeland falls apart.
Our priorities are in desperate need of correction. American tax dollars should be invested in Americans.
i agree with you somewhat. my big issue is massive amounts of foreign aid to countries that actually hate us. also it is hard to dismantle almost 70 years of foreign policy overnight, but the process should be started. in the meantime i favor a strong military because i do not trust the Russians or the Chinese one bit
A start, I can handle. More of the status quo, I cannot.
I favor a strong military as well. And we will have that, even if massive cuts are applied to the “defense” budget. More than anything I want our dollars being spent on actual defense. I am tired of wasting tax dollars on futile nation building, and having good men and women die for such folly.
How about we STOP paying the Middle East 700 Billion a year in oil revenues as a good starting point?
That’s certainly part of it. Anyone that thinks the Saudis would be our “friends” without our dollars lining their pockets are nuts.
Last time I checked Australia was surrounded by a few thousand miles of shark infested oceans.
Right, that’s what I was talking about. Their isolation and geography serve as an extremely effective natural defense. Though the future superpower China (and perhaps India), will of course have Indonesia to use as a stepping stone, should they ever become enemies, the likelihood of any full scale intercontinental invasion is still quite unlikely.
Actually, in historic terms, Australias “saving” by American Armed Forces took place a mere 60 years ago… a “split second ago” in historic terms.
A great deal of History took place before any of us where around, and a great deal more will take place long after we’re gone.
Try to take a “longer” look at history, please.
The explosion of technology in the past few (relative) split seconds of history has changed everything. Never before in the history of mankind has technology developed so rapidly, not only in civilian technology, but in warfare.
This of course does not render the lessons of history irrelevant, though warfare has and will continue to evolve. The technological edge has always proved the trump card. That’s where our power lies.
Our military should be designed to face the enemy of today, with a look towards tomorrow. Should the situation change, the military should change with it. Adaption – evolution – whatever you want to call it.
The presence of nuclear weapons is all it takes to protect your nation from invasion. A huge, bloated conventional military is wasteful, bureaucratic, and, frankly, dangerous. The Afghanistan war is the longest in US history, and it is a terrible snafu. The Iraq war was a similar awful bungle. I’m glad Obama ended it, just like he plans to end the Afghanistan war in 2014.
The time frame for ending the Iraq war was officially negotiated by Condi Rice under the Bush Administration. All Obama had to do was live up to the terms already agreed to.
Here is Condi herself disagreeing with you:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/02/condoleezza_rice_we_never_expected_to_leave_iraq_in_2011
So, I repeat: Obama ended the War in Iraq and a Republican, George W. Bush, started it and mired us in ten years of bungling and corruption and death.
You don’t understand what you linked to.
Whether there were plans to stay and change the agreement or not is irrelevant.
The Status of Forces Agreement which ended US direct involvement in Iraq was negotiated by Condi Rice and signed in Baghdad before Obama took office. All Obama did was go through with the original agreement.
Which is EXACTLY what happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
As Condi points out specifically in the link I provided, she didn’t expect the troops to be out by 2011; she thought there would be new negotiations. But thanks to the Obama administration’s careful handling, all potentials were, impressively, resolved–as your link shows.
So, we can just agree to disagree and I’ll let readers decide for themselves.
Bye.
Ah… the joy of ‘dualing links”…
Wikipedia??? Aw, c’mon …
Didn’t Nobama claim that Afganistan was the “good war”…?
Did not he say that when he got into office that our troops would come home if he was elected? I thought I heard that. Doesn’tmatter what Rice said, what did Obama say.
Doesn’t matter what Obama did if the deal was sealed.
NO THEY DON’T WORK FINE IN CANADA! I’d be willing to be you’ve never asked a Canadian citizen how their socialized medicine is working for them. Well, I have many relatives there and know for a fact it is in a dismal state. People waiting for months for critical tests and specialists. Many procedures not covered, etc. A woman I know had to come to Boston for heart surgery. The doctors said she was lucky she made it for that long without dying. She was on a waiting list for heart surgery. Don’t talk about what you don’t know.
Your personal reports are valueless. I have plenty of stories from Canada too.
Here is some hard data:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1857600/are_canadians_healthier_than_americans/
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canada-loses-top-spot-switzerland-country-ranking-index-194604514.html
This one shows the utter corruption of the big insurance company corporate system in the US:
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/
“The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.”
My father in law lived on Grand Mannan, he developed a bad heart condition in his early 50’s. Over the next 16 years until his death, he had to be flown to Halifax a couple of times and once to Montreal for a quadruple bypass. He had numerous trips to the cardiac intensive care unit in Saint John NB. When he passed away my mother in law didn’t owe any of the hospitals or doctors a dime.
This is the kind of story I hear about Canada, and know from personal experience.
Want the email address of my neighbor in Bangor who’s a Radiation Oncologist who sees (rich) Canadians every day?
My English relatives say their socialized National Health isn’t perfect — but they would not dream of trading it for the American non-system that was in place before Obama began to reform it.
Most of the Affordable Care Act still has not taken effect, but you now cannot be dropped by your insurance company for being too sick, nor can you be turned away because of a pre-existing condition, the “donut hole” in drug coverage for seniors has been closed, and young people can stay on their parents plans much longer.
An English, French, or Canadian style plan would be still better than Obamneycare, but the president knew what could get through Congress and what could not. Obama knew that Romney’s Republican plan (similar to Nixon’s plan and Dole’s plan), the plan Romney and the Republicans now repudiate, was better than the mess we had before, and he did what no other president had managed to accomplish.
Then why do Canadians come to America for major surgery? Like an elderly woman who is in drastic pain and needs a hip replacement, and can not wait for a Doctor in Canada. And I would hate to have a heart attack in Canada, I would be dead before I get operated on, or get a transplant.
Plenty of American citizens go to other countries for medical treatment, six million of us each year:
http://news.health.com/2009/04/08/traveling-treatment/
Not only that, Americans used to go to Canada to get pharmaceuticals, until the Republicans led the charge to make that illegal.
And, Canadians are healthier than Americans and happier with their health plans:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/
And wait until these doctors in other countries start to get sued by money hungry people and their lawyers. We will see those costs rise as they have here. Lawsuits are the main reason for overblown healthcare costs. And sorry, I don’t believe anything the liberal Washington Post calls news.
People in other countries aren’t as money-oriented as Americans. Of course, many Americans end up desperate to pay doctor bills, which people in all other democratic countries don’t have to worry about.
You should consider moving there. Sounds like you are a product of class envy.
Try standing outside the cancer centers in Maine and count all the (rich) Canadians here for chemo and other, expensive, treatments NOT available “back home”.
True, meds ARE cheaper in Canada.
But, they’ve limited access to high-tech (expensive) tests and treatments to reduce costs. Canadian women have far less access to PAP smears and mamograms, and Canadian men less access to PSA exams… with breast and prostate cancer rates accordingly higher than our side of the border.
Under Nobama Care(less), let us know how your cancer gets treated…
While I can appreciate the points made in this quote…I respectfully disagree. At least the Democrats HAVE a vision to make living conditions better for the working middle- class. Expecting governance to reflect the benefits of their vision is naive. There is one step between vision and governance, and that is agreement–political concordance. Governance only changes when a majority authorize it to. Instead of cultivating a vision for the country, the Republicans substitute conservative ideology. They remain politically viable because they concern themselves with getting their rank-and-file to march in tight formation, whereas the Democrats are always concerned with getting the platform tent to cover everyone. The natural reaction to all this is for both parties to move toward the center in order to maximize political support. One dramatic change in the last twenty years is this: the Democrats are now perceived as being the “opposition” party. Opposition to what? The status quo.
Conservatives don’t have all the practical answers admittedly, but it seems to me evident that liberals practical answers do not match the vision. Liberal ideology has replaced common sense and that is why the writer I quoted above said that liberalism is in decline.
Unions in Illinois for instance have such a death grip on the state that the pension obligations cannot be met. Even the Democrats like Rahm in Chicago find themselves in
conflict with the teacher union over finances. Democrats and the monolithic structures they have built can’t help but suffocate the governments they need to support them.
Please read this for a commentary more complete than I can provide.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/10/25/news-from-obamas-home-state/
Very well-written and interesting piece. Unfortunately it ignores the fact that the global economy was destroyed by the laissez-faire economic policies and practices under Bush-Cheney. In terms of “monolithic structures,” what…Medicare and Social Security? Labor unions? These are important to all Americans, not just liberals. The failing infrastructures in these three key states are not surprising. Had the venture capitalists practiced what they preached, the government wouldn’t have been obligated to bail out Wall Street. This is further evidence that while “trickle-down” might work in prosperous times, it certainly doesn’t in economic recession. So now in the vacuum created by the economic destruction under Republican rule, the task of job creation falls to the federal government, along with the need to fund bridges, roads, schools, etc. This means tough decisions, especially in light of the reluctance to raise revenue via taxation. The irony is that the GOP created this scenario and feel no shame in criticizing either the size or the role of government.
Well put.
Thanks, SD. I call ’em the way I see ’em.
I am out for the evening. This is the best I can do for a definition of “monolithic structures” on short notice.
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United
States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in
the federal budget—including Social
Security, Medicare, or national
defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal
poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1
trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent
since 2008.
Have a good evening and thanks for the civility. My best.
Somehow Canadians spend less, insure everyone, are healthier, have a better economy, and also great welfare benefits for all.
In other words, the problem in America is Big Insurance, Wall Street and other corporates that constantly find ways to corrupt the system and hoard wealth in the Cayman Islands. They pay no income taxes at all:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/apr/10/tax-evaders-wall-shame/
No, Your problem lies in your greener pastures approach to healthcare. We are not Canada. We have unique Issues not the least of which is we pound our business like a drum.
Cheesecake, I suggest you read this piece:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-the-road-ahead-the-rolling-stone-interview-20121025
“If Obama wins re-election, his domestic agenda will be anchored around a guarantee to all Americans that civil rights, Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, affordable health care, public education, clean air
and water, and a woman’s right to choose will be protected, no matter
how poorly the economy performs. If he is re-elected in November and makes his health care program permanent, it will take root in the history books as a seminal achievement. If he loses, Romney and Ryan will crush his initiatives without remorse.”
Yea, and the whole country will be messed up even more if he gets in. Medicaid will be destroyed, you will get fined unless you have insurance, hmm kind of Socialist.
The additional c0mmonality of your three progressive “utopia’s” is one is broke, one is dead broke and the third is racing to catch the first two.
California used to be the state with the best education system in the nation. But then they introduced prop 13 (?) where it froze property taxes. The result was a decline in funds for education. Should we do that here in Maine? How about with every reduction in funds from the Fed and the State we cease an equal amount of money spent doing mandated things in education.
BTW, according to all reports, we as a state are lagging way behind the rest of New England in recovery from the recession. Is that the fault of the Democrats or the fault of the Republican leadership of the last 2 years?
That is California where even the Liberals understood they couldn’t squeeze the taxpayer enough. That was my point they are suffocating themselves.
They are suffocating themselves because they cut their funding but not all the mandates that the funding was supposed to pay for. The Republican Party wants to cut taxes but not the over bloated military. The rest of the world sits in awe of us frittering away our national wealth on military adventures that have gained us nothing. Hell we don’t ever know how to wage all out war anymore.
Those states, we are talking states here, are Democratic run states where they can do pretty much anything they want and do. They are so bloated these Democrat run states are suffocating themselves. The military has nothing to do with it. The union pensions and state give-way programs and promised entitlements are killing them.
why would we want democrats to “win maine”
?
hasn’t 30 years of democratic shenanigans run this state into the ground enough?
Just guessing here, but could it be because the folks who’ve replaced them are making our State and all it’s citizens appear to the rest of the country/world to be just as foolish and backwoods thinking as they are?
Bank of America is currently being sued by the Federal Government for a billion dollars in relation to deceitful practices related to the great crash of 2008, in which Wall Street led the destruction of the US economy, sending Maine, Texas and every other state into a spiral.
It is crazy to blame democrats for this Great Recession that occurred under George W. Bush, who Romney is afraid to even mention. He won’t say his name. However, Romney’s policies are the same as Bush, except Romeny also wants to dismantle Medicare and let the greedy world of Big Insurance take more and more from senior citizens.
Who told you he won’t say his name? That is a ridiculous statement. Romney does not want to dismantle medicare – another ridiculous statement. Where do you come up with this crap?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ltV8PM6Ipg
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/03/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-wants-turn-medicare-voucher-prog/
By the way, as soon as you throw insults, you lose credibility and make Republicans look bad.
they do a pretty good job of doing that to themselves
You don’t have to throw insults to look bad spruce, you look bad all day long!
Again, you’re making Republicans look bad. Try to offer some evidence, argument or link.
For instance, here is Newt Gingrich calling Fox News bias:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/12/gingrich_unloads_on_fox_news_in_private_meeting___113818.html
Romney wants to make medicare private and give people vouchers. Can you see people in their 70’s, 80’s and 90’s going into BC/BS offices and asking if they can get health insurance? They will be laughed at right out the door. Maybe a few big CEO’s earning hugh salaries will kick the old people down the street. If it wasn’t so sad it would be laughable.
Wrong! Romney wants to give folks, like me, the OPTION of making my own decisions rather than be told what to do, over and over, by uncaring and unknowing Federales.
Rember, it’s all about CHOICE… unless we’re not a Progressive.
Ryan’s voucher will cover much less and give insurance companies the option to deny you coverage when you reach Medicare age. You will, of course, still be free to visit the emergency room. Choose wisely.
Big Oil and Big Insurance don’t let you make your own decisions. They maximize the ways they can control and manipulate you.
Why? Because they don’t care about your “pursuit of happiness” or your liberty. They treat you like a pawn, and making them your master makes you their pawn.
Just trust Big Government to take care of you Spruce, they do so well with their other programs and services. They maximize the ways they can control and manipulate you.
Why? Because they don’t care about your “pursuit of happiness” or your
liberty. They treat you like a pawn, and making them your master makes
you their pawn.
The news media and politicians have done a great job focusing all health care problems on the insurance industry. Cost of health care – blame the insurance company. Can’t get treatment, expensive drugs, doctor bills, hospital costs, emergency care and on and on, just blame it all on the insurance industry. Now if only Big Government would take it on and fire all of the insurance people, we could all just have the health care that we want and it wouldn’t cost us a nickel. We could tax the rich people and make those no good rotten profit seekers pay and have what we want and need. And you believe that hogwash because the BDN and Barrack Obama tell you to.
I prefer BIG government to BIG business any day . We saw how much “respect ” and consideration BIG Business showed to Americans and other American small busineses in 2008. They crashed the economy , then asked for a taxpayers hand out and thanked us for our effort by putting us out of work, and out of our HOMES , and squeezing credit lines
Yup give me BIG Government , looking out for the american people”s best interest ANY day and putting THEIR interests first.
WE saw what deregulation and smaller government brought—- a crashed economy —- BIG BUSINESS running rough shodd over Americans and taxpayers— capitalism gone wild, vulture capitalism picking the bones…. isn’t much to write home about or be proud of.
Having a job and keeping you r home and credit line IS MY pursuit of happiness. and I expect the BIG BAD government to protect all of that .So who’s pursuit of happiness are YOU looking out for??seriously? the insurance company’s, the BIG banks , Big OIL
A barrell of oil is around $90 right now; the price at the pump should be NO more then $2.50.a gal, so what is it $3.80?? MY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS is it being $2.50 a gal
Seriously consider, it may be YOU who has been brain washed by 24/7/365″messaging”
Health care is not like choosing what car you want to drive, or deciding whether to have chicken or fish for dinner… people who are in need of health care are often not in a position to shop around and negotiate.
Romney and Ryan have bamboozled people like you into thinking that they’re going to give you the moon and the stars. It’s amazing to me that so many seem to lap up the thin gruel that they’ve offered. I’ve heard the “repeal”, but have yet to see the “replace”…
What is much more likely is, you will be cut loose and allowed to fend for yourself against giant monolithic insurance companies, who, if Romney and Ryan get their way, will have little or no regulations guiding them. Sometimes “freedom” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Ever wonder what a death panel looks like? Meet an unregulated insurance giant.Most people understand, I think, that government needs to “promote the general welfare” even if it means big business doesn’t get everything on its Christmas list.
Finally, believe me, progressives have had to eat a lot of choices that were made by conservatives over the past 30 years that weren’t exactly to our liking. But rarely have I seen or heard the bellyaching and tantrums that the right has exhibited in the last 4 years… somehow when the right imposes its will on the left, it’s perfectly fine, but let the left (and I don’t even think Obama IS a leftist) try to push back at all, and you squeal like stuck pigs.
“people who are in need of health care are often not in a position to shop around and negotiate.” Amen to that! Just try navigating the waters called “Medicare, Part D” for prescription coverage and it is enough to make your head spin! The old saw has changed — “I’m from the Insurance Company and I’m here to help you” — sure!
is paying $6,000 more out of pocket an OPTION that you actually want?? Hey go for it man. I;’m sure someone would be willing to sell you that option even NOW, nothing is stopping you from choosing it no .
… out of his own words ( and that of his partner ,Ryan) perhaps ??
It was your Dem party led by Barney Frank and his big idea of putting everyone in a home that blew up Wall St. Not GWB.
Wanting to put people in a home is fine. Big Banks unethically gambling on bundled mortgages, leading to utter collapse, is not. See the Oscar-winning documentary, Inside Job.
You are good (well, ‘fair’) at stating one half of a story. The banks were forced by your precious government leaders such as Barney Frank to make loans to applicants who in reality never had any business getting a mortgage. You have swallowed way too much Kool Aid.
That banks were forced to make money? I can’t believe that’s the line people are buying.
It’s not the loans that sunk the economy, anyway, it is how the loans were bundled into derivaties, mis-rated, and traded unethically on Wall Street. See the Oscar-winning documentary, Inside Job.
The money was guaranteed by Fannie Mae, which was overseen by the House Financial Service, whose lead member was Barney Frank. Barney Frank said there was no problem in the foreseeable future and backed all the loans given out by the banks. The banks, in turn, gave out loans for over priced homes, to people who couldn’t afford them, due to Fannie Mae guaranteeing it.
Not only that if you declined certain loans that might be risky,to the wrong people, you could be in violation of the law.
AIG was bailed out and they immediately gave million-dollar bonuses to people that helped destroy the economy, and they bought expensive marble floors.
People were tricked into accepted loans they didn’t understand. It is not as if the people fooled the banks.
And, again, it is how Wall Street bundled the loans and traded them that destroyed the economy. The corruption at the top was unbelievable–and they got away with it, and people like you are letting them gear up to do it again.
BUT it was the banks who made the bad predatory loans …but TOLD fannie and freddy they were just fine” Go read what the lawsuit is about .
A policy of DEREGULATION( smaller government __”trust us to voluntarily comply”) is what alowed it all to unravel. The BIG BOYS need rules to reign in their evil side.
Do you honestly conclude that folks obtaining loans they’d never be able to pay off did NOT impact any of this?
I’m not saying Bush was blameless, nor that banks were greedy and contributed to all this. But any reasonable person must see this as the Gordian Knot it was, with contribution by so many on both sides of the issue.
Just how blind to reality are you stuck so far up that spruce?
People were tricked into buying risky sub-prime loans, even when they qualified for prime loans. The middle-man banks made more money by tricking people, and Wall Street profited by trading in the derivaties, which were wrongly rated as AAA by the rating agencies, but actually were junk.
This incredible frenzy of greed and gambling destroyed our entire economy. The lack of regulation. And the corruption at the top. Which still exists–and if it stays there, our democracy continues to sink.
They were told by the “experts” they could “afford” it. The banks approved the loans.
Apparently you haven’t read the latest news and the lawsuit against BOA.
obama also signed bailouts for his wall street buddies.
who was obama’s biggest campaign contributor? goldman sachs
who recieved a boatload of money from the government? goldman sachs
who is romney’s biggest campaign contributor? goldman sachs.
follow the money.
and as far as dem/repub,
they’re both the same, they both sell us out.
“It is crazy to blame democrats for this Great Recession that occurred under George W. Bush, ”
the real culprit in that is the federal reserve, which set interest rates to near 0% during that time, enabling banks to borrow money for free, then sell that money at interest in loans, then ball all those loans up into packages and sell those amongst each other like a financial game of hot potato.
Goldman Sachs, like the rest of Wall Street, supported Democrats more than Republicans in 2008–for the first time–because they knew Republicans, associated with George W. Bush, would lose.
Blaming the Federal Reserve for giving the banks money, when it is the banks that unethically gambled with that money, and the credit rating agencies inflated the value of the junk derivatives, is way off.
Not for ” the first time.” Bill Clinton would disagree.
You claim.
Who forced banks to make bad loans? Hmm, seems to me it was your beloved democrats such as Big Barney Frank.
I know Glenn Beck likes to blame Barney Frank. There is a reason that Beck lost his TV contract with Fox News.
Here is the debunking of Beck’s myth:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/barney-frank-didnt-cause-the-housing-crisis/2011/11/28/gIQANqLH5N_blog.html
Actually, the TARP bailout for Wall Street was a Republican bill signed by Bush.
Well Those ” BUDDIES ” weren’t very loyal; they are ALL supportung Romney now .
Follow the money is right!!! You walked right into it, buddy. GOLDMAN has given Romney mearly $1 million They are ROMNEY’s top donor THIS year. Go look at Romney and Obama’s top 10 contributors at open secrets .com and compare They tell quite the story. They ( BIG BANKS) all support ROMNEY now –loyalty of “buddies” is transitory and self interested in the busienss and political world.
Hey Romney promised to unchain ( deregulate) the financialsector so they can mess with tax payers and consumers all over again.Tthey aren’t guveing him money for his good looks and debate performance. They want something from him .
It’s time for the leaners to pay their fair share. Half of U.S. workers pay $0 in federal income tax. They have always counted on the hard-working middle and upper classes to hold their hands through life. Enough welfare.
Yeah, they pay payroll taxes instead. I guess you agreed with Romney when he said he didn’t care about 47% of Americans.
Romney apologized for that, saying it was a terrible mistake. You are still saying it.
If you pay in yet get all plus more back..those are the leaches on the butt of society
All those disabled vets who pay no income tax, yet (sometimes) get help?
All those disabled people, who can work part-time at best?
All those elderly people, who worked at low-wage jobs all their lives and are now living in poverty?
“Leeches on the butt of society”?
So you think the BUSH tax cuts should be eliminated and the neyt Pres should RAISE taxes to get rid of those “leaches” ? Good I have a candidate for you.. OBAMA.
Romney is a Politician, and responded accordingly.
The FACT still remains that far too many of our neighbors fail to pay into their own largess.
Romney was a politician when he said he didn’t care about 47% of Americans because they are ‘lazy’?
So you support eliminating the BUSH tax cuts?
You recognize that millions of American workers are trying to get by on extremely low pay. That’s why they pay no income tax. Yet you are angry at them for being in need?
They pay payroll tax and excise tax.
Many low-wage workers who earn very little money are disabled. One of my daughters was born with a disabling genetic deletion syndrome. She works part time. Whenever ambition causes her to try full-time work, she winds up in the hospital. Her job is providing personal care (such as changing diapers) in an Alzheimer’s unit. She pays no state or federal income tax. So you despise her and accuse her and others like her of demanding hand-holding….
YOU or someone you love could lose your job, or become disabled, or have a disabled child or grandchild. You or they will then become part of the 47% you belittle. And there will be no help for you or for them, if you elect R&R who will demolish the social safety net.
Have you seen the HUGE increase in Disability Benefits paid under Nobama?
Do you honestly believe all these folks were suddenly “injured” on the job?
Once Progressive/Marxist leaders are replaced, we can put more Americans back to work and off Goverment teat.
It’s called war. Two horrific wars started by Bush, one of then still continuing, the other lasting ten years. Bush said we’d be out in months, in both cases. And you trust the Republican party?
Disabled workers who were once able to find and keep jobs are being laid off–and can find it harder to find new jobs than non-disabled workers. Republicans leaders have been working hard to block America’s economic recovery, in order to set the stage for getting elected & wrecking the economy all over again.
An example of a disabled person who has had SSI and might get it again: My daughter, who is in her 30s, was able to hold a job folding napkins at age 18, when she transitioned out of a group home into an apartment with supports. Voc Rehab helped her find better-paying work, and she gradually increased her work week from one hour 2 days a week to a 20-hour week by her late 20s. She was getting SSI.
A couple of times, she tried to work a 40-hour week, and wound up back in the hospital. But eventually she got up to a 32-hour week as a personal care attendant. Once she did this, her income stayed high enough long enough so that she lost her MaineCare and SSI. Was she suddenly non-disabled? Nope.
If she overdoes it again and goes back to the hospital, she’ll lose this job. Will she be able to find another? Not sure.
If she can’t find work that doesn’t wear her down to a nub again, she still has to live somehow. It might be a struggle, but I think we’ll be able to get her SSI etc, going again. Her disability is permanent and lifelong.
Does all this make me–and her–Marxists? I doubt you even know what the word means. Does receiving SSI mean my daughter is on the “government teat”? What a nasty choice of words.
Thank you for these important points, and your brave story.
You’re welcome. But I’m not very brave. I’m just a very determined Mom!
And, Obama personally approved all those disability payments? Sheesh …
Ancient Greek observation: “The fish smells first at the head”.
That “welfare” is called the BUSH tax cut. Make up your mind. Do you like tax cuts or not? YUP when you give tax cuts there is less revenue and FEWER people pay taxes. Wasn’t that the whole point of giving the tax cuts?
NOW you all ( and Mitt) want to call those hard working AMERICANS “entitled”? How twisted is THAT thinking? IT was BUSH”S taxcut. SO you want to turn the clock back on that and raise taxes now? Well then you should vote Obama this time , because he DOES wan to raise taxes on some of them.
I am not trying to start any kind of argument so do not unleash on me but have you seen who pres obama ‘s campaign is borrowing money from. HInt the initials are b o a .any guesses.
It’s the great “bait and switch” scheme.
Nobama hammers BOA in public, and sucks up to them privately.
He’s not the first to play that game by Politicians and Bankers… just the latest.
And, of course, Romney and Ryan aren’t doing anything of the kind? I can’t remember the degree of lies and hate in a political campaign as those I am seeing now. Makes me sick!
Who had the house and senate when all this started??..lets see Todd frank bill on housing..pressure to lend to people who had no business getting a loan..last four years …not so hopy changey !
Don’t confuse the liberals with facts, their heads might pop.
Too bad the facts don’t back up your statements…
Democrats controlled Congress while all this mess was taking place. Bush’s fault was to “go along” and fail to VETO so much foolishness.
Have you ever heard of Dodd-Frank legislation? I little homework and insightfulness, would show that Chris and Barney probably had more to do with the Recesion, overtly, than Bush did passively.
The Oscar-winning documentary, Inside Job, provides a great education, if you’re interested.
HUH? so it wasn’t, fannie and freddy’s fault, BUT BOA’s ( corporate American’s) etc Gee imagine that.
They can win by leaving the State! That is what you call a Win/Win situation.
I concur! and will help.em.pack
thanks for the great gragh(ics)BDN. It’s good to take a look at history and realjty..
UH that would be more like 20 years , ancient legacy, exaggerate much? less if you figure in 8 years of “independent” control, added into the mix too.
Why would we want D’s to win?? We have seen what just 2 years of R control brings– abuse of power —-endless name calling, endless conflict endless divisiveness,, putting politics before people, putting a national R agenda ahead of the best interest of Mainers , a puppet governor and legislature prepared to “follow” the most extreme Party orders without question. or objection.
A p;arty who stabs voters in the back and makes fal;se accusation of VOTER fraud to change the rules, to suppress the vote, make voting less accessible and put party politics and agenda ahead of the best interest of Maine people and democracy, isn’t a party to be proud of .
” less if you figure in 8 years of “independent” control”
King is hardly “independent”
he’s as much of a democrat as you can get.
and he ran this state into the ground with his programs and policies.
I”ll bet you weren’t even here or paying attention when he was governor . KING became governor at exactly the right time — a time of high partisanship. And it is the perfect time for him again— HIGH partisanship in Congress , to break the gridlock and insanity. Business and the Chamber LOVED him. Don’t believe what you hear in the ads created “from away” Truth isn’t in their vocabulary.
I’ll.go out on.a.limb…they could stop lying so.darn.much. Democrats have gotten so far left..heck you could not get john f Kennedy in there now..too conservative.Benghazi!
JFK was considerably to the left of Obama on health care — Kennedy wanted a single-payer plan.
Both men are tough on foreign policy — although Kennedy had the botched Bay of Pigs invasion on his hands, and mission creep in Vietnam.
Kennedy would fit right in with today’s Democratic Party.
Ronald Reagan, however, who raised taxes and never tried to get rid of Planned Parenthood or Big Bird, would be far too moderate for today’s radical right tea party Republican Party. Republicans have forgotten that Reagan wasn’t nuts like today’s Republicans generally are.
Kennedy was pro-tax cuts and that alone would make him a pariah in todays Democratic Party.
Reagan was more of a political realist. He knew what could be done and couldn’t be done in his time.
On Abortion:
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980
Obama gaave us middle-class tax cuts, so by your definition Obama must be a pariah in today’s Democratic Party.
Yes, Reagan had a good sense of humor, but I said nothing at all about abortion.
Women rely on Planned Parenthood for birth control, pap smears, mamograms, etc. Today’s radical Republicans want to do away with Planned Parenthood. Reagan didn’t.
The so-called middle class tax cuts were put in place by George Bush. They were renamed after Obama came up with his “tax cuts for the rich” schtick.
They were extended for all in agreements reached by the Republicans and the White House. The White House would have been in a world of hurt to raise taxes as they intended….
Cheese, you’re wrong. Obama has put several tax cuts in place as well as extending the Bush tax cuts. You need to go back to the records.
Penzance referred specifically to the “middle Class tax cut”. It is as I said.
Maybe you should look into the Making Work Pay tax cut as well as the reduction in Social Security taxes on middle class families.
You are speaking about the “Payroll Tax Holiday”. Again that is not the “middle Class Tax Cut” that Bush enacted and to which penzance referred.
And the Making Work Pay tax cut? Really Cheese, I expect better from you than this. It doesn’t hurt simply acknowledge reality Obama cut taxes for the middle class.
Obama extended old tax cuts and also added new tax cuts as part of his economic stimulus, which was heavy on “Republican style tax cuts” and light on stimulus spending — but still no Republicans were willing to step up and vote for the American economy.
The idea that Kennedy cut taxes and therefore would be unwelcome in today’s Democratic Party is made ridiculous by the fact that Obama cut taxes and is the mainstream of today’s Democratic Party.
and kiss those cuts good bye Jan 1st. The middle class will be paying more. Obama will be raising taxes on Jan 1st.
But the most direct and significant kind of federal
action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private
consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters whichhold back
private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the
increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments
situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion.
It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly
than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the
government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of
the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of
national need or spent with maximum efficiency.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among
consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the
deterrents to private initiative
which are imposed by our present tax
system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an
across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income
taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
I’m not talking about a “quickie” or a temporary tax
cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor
am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease
some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of
the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in
good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a
drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy
too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it
reduces the financial incenitives [sic] for personal effort, investment, and
risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the
federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of
excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives
and opportunities for private expenditures. ~~~~~~JFK
Address to the
Economic Club of New York
delivered 14 December 1962
No Democrat I know would advocate that the government actually holds back growth when it spends money as JKF does here.
No Democrat I know would advocate for corporate tax cuts as JFK does here.
I resubmit.
JFK would not be welcome in todays Democratic Party.
Obama has passed several tax cuts that help corporations and small businesses. There is of course the HIRE program, which encourages small businesses (many of them ‘corporations’ to hire more workers), deductions for many business expenses including health care for employees, eliminating capital gains taxes for small businesses, allowing larger deductions for small business start ups to encourage growth, and many others. Perhaps you might want to pay attention to what has actually been going on (or you may need to hire a new accountant if yours is too incompetent to take advantage of these great programs).
The so called tax cuts for small business were only there for a small number of businesses and only if you qualified. Hardly the panacea Obama made it out to be but good enough to draw in people who say “Look!! Obama gives tax cuts!!”
The so-called healthcare tax cuts meant nothing to me when it costs more to put my account on it at a couple hundred dollars an hour filling out the worksheets and forms. I saved money NOT taking the credit. My accounting firm is one of the largest in the Bangor area.
According to you with all these advantages small business should be booming. It isn’t. Over the last three years there have been the fewest small business start-ups in the post ww2 era.
If you really cared about small business start ups, you would be advocating for single payer. If we had Universal Health Care people would be more free to take risks.
Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion mill. Just a couple of weeks ago Cecile Richards (Planned Parenthood president), and Obama were talking up all the mammograms that PP does. So a Catholic website got 1,975 Catholics to call PP clinics all over the country to make an appointment for a mammogram. Guess what? NONE of the PP clinics had a mammography program! They now say they REFER women to mammogram providers. PP is one of the poster children for the big Democrat lie. The truth is way too inconvenient for the Dem party. If everyone knew their agenda, the party would melt away to nothing in no time.
So, because we Republicans want to end wasteful spending ie;
Solyndra, cash for clunkers, a misstep on how to assist the auto industry, The
Affordable Care Act and the list goes on, we are crazy or radical? We
republicans as a whole, contrary to the belief of the left are tired of seeing
millions of people enslaved to the social programs of the liberal left and the
mentality that the government needs to be bigger and bigger to make sure that
it can be dictated as to how people should live their lives. Planned Parenthood
is a failure; the educating of children when it is appropriate to enter
parenthood is a job for parents. Your President apparently is not tough on
foreign policy from the way our foreign relations look right now, strained
relations with Israel, the mess ongoing in Libya and Iran everyday closer to a
nuclear weapon. Today’s Republicans are patriotic and passionate Americans. You’re
President and his minions are ashamed of America and have a plan of their own
as to how this country should look in the eyes of the rest of the world, and it
is in no way anything the vast majority in this country would find acceptable. You,
comparing Obama to JFK borders on ridiculous.
Almost nothing you said is true.
The typical response from the left, because you fail to agree with what someone says or prints it is a lie. The tactic of putting one’s head in the sand and hoping the problems going away is not working. That is why we have 16 trillion in debt and have millions of people still out of work and over 47 million on food stamps. In the eyes of liberals things are getting better and we should all be thrilled with the job Obama has done. This is why we will have a new President sworn into office in January.
You wont have to worry about the other 47 % neither does Romney. He will just pretend they don’t exist and they will ( poof ) disappear. Then there you go case closed and no more debt and deficit.
God help you if you ever become one of the 47%, (poof).
Almost? So, of what I said is and is not true.
The republican party has been hijacked by the Tea Party. Form your own party.
I do not think that the Tea Party has as much influence as the media portrays. I think that the basics of the Tea Party movement are sound, in the need to reduce the size and scope of government. The Republican party is still the GOP and has not been hijacked in my opinion.
The Tea Party is certainly trying to hijack it, tho you’re right…it hasn’t been as successful as some say. Besides, the nutty Christian bloc won’t give up that easily. THEY have hijacked our Party.
And we’re on the side of the angels with tax breaks for oil companies and never reeling in Israel at all? You’re kidding, right?
Reeling in Israel. Why would Israel need “reeling in”?
Because, like its extremist Palestinian opponents, it claims to want peace without acknowledging the legitimate gripes of the other. Israel does this while we fund and militarily guarantee its existence, further complicating our other interests in the region.
One of the biggest welfare programs going is the corporations. If you were in their tax bracket you wouldn’t be complaining either. You don’t see them backing out of a good deal now do ya. Today’s Republicans are patriotic and passionate Americans. A vast number of today’s repubs are nothing but whacked out crazy selfish children, being led by some Wackadoodles. And there can be few things more alarming in public policy than a political movement which was genuinely prepared to see the government of the United States default on its obligations in order to score a political point. Which the teaparty is so happy to do. They are the biggest threat to the world’s biggest economy. The mixture of politics and religion has turned the GOP into an apocalyptic sect. And the teapartiers are out in front with their fairy tale sled riding the slipperiest slope in history. And they will be the first to land in the cataclysmic hole they are heading for.
You talk about wackadoodles and you yourself sound to be unhinged with your absurd accusations of Republicans. I understand that liberals feel a considerable amount of pressure considering the great Massiah Obama’s election campaign is in trouble. The liberals have failed in their attempt to make Romney out to be some monster that he is not. Todays polls show that he leads Obama amongst Independants with a rating of 57%, that should concern you all. The corporations are probably some of the biggest recipients of government handouts and it does need to stop as well as the scheme of social welfare and the enslavement of the American poor.
Your talk is that of the same pathetic Republican Hierarchy, they have never gotten over that a smart well educated sophisticated black man became president of the great USA. Something that has been in their craw ever since. Something that they will never be able to do.
The Democrats are not trying anything that Romney isn’t already doing. He is making it quite plain what he is not, and letting everyone know it as well. As a matter of fact he is usually something, before he is not that at all. And he has been doing that a lot lately. I’m surprised you even know what he is, he sure doesn’t know.
Only about 15 percent of American voters are truly independent, voting sometimes for Democrats and sometimes for Republicans, and they are statistically less likely to vote than their partisan counterparts. So your 57% doesn’t bother me in the least, because the independent voter is less likely to vote.
And the swing states are leading toward the Obama camp quite strongly, that is something you should be worried about.
You would have a hard time to find any American (poor or not) that would say they was feeling like they were being detained by force unless they was in a prison setting.
So typical, when the argument from the left fails, talk turns to race. The only ones to ever make race an issue is people from the left. That argument is tired, not based in fact and sick. I do not care if our President is black, white, green or blue. I, as well as many advocated for Condoleezza Rice as a VP choice and before he showed that he is a RINO Colin Powell as a good choice for high office. You seem to be the one who is racist. I myself am only concerned as to who is better suited for the job, not what their skin color is.
I am sure that you will find that the Independant vote and the current undecided will be what propels Romney to the White House. The 47% reference I think was the fact that 47% are not going to vote for Romney anyways and that is why he does not plan to worry about them as far as support for his campaign. The swing states are now leaning Romney not Obama, maybe you should get your news from an up to date source instead of the pony express.
I feel your view is incomplete…try this analysis from the BOSTON GLOBE for accuracy:
When Richard Nixon was a teenager, he watched two of his brothers die. His little
brother went first, at age 7, of a sudden and mysterious illness. Then his big brother
died at age 22, after a long battle with tuberculosis. It was the 1920s. Health
insurance hardly existed. The sicknesses sapped his parents’ meager resources. His
mother stopped baking pies for the family’s little grocery store to care full time for
her ailing son. Nixon worked as a janitor to earn extra money, and turned down a
scholarship to Harvard because it didn’t cover room and board.
When Nixon, a staunch Republican, became president in 1969, he threw his weight
behind health care reform.
“Everybody on his cabinet opposed it,” recalled Stuart Altman, Nixon’s top health
aide. “Nixon just brushed them aside and told Cap Weinberger ‘You get this done.’ ”
Nixon had other reasons, beside his dead brothers, to support reform. Medicare had
just been passed, and many Americans expected universal health care to be next.
“We had the same problems then as we have now,” Altman said. “A lot of people
uninsured, and health care costs were considered too high.”
Ted Kennedy, whom Nixon assumed would be his rival in the next election, made
universal health care his signature issue. Kennedy proposed a single-payer, tax-based
system. Nixon strongly opposed that on the grounds that it was un-American and
would put all health care “under the heavy hand of the federal government.”
Instead, Nixon proposed a plan that required employers to buy private health
insurance for their employees and gave subsidies to those who could not afford
insurance. Nixon argued that this market-based approach would build on the
strengths of the private system.
“Government has a great role to play, he said, “but we must always make sure that
our doctors will be working for their patients and not for the federal government.”
No one breathed a word at the time about Nixon’s plan being unconstitutional.
Instead, it faced opposition from Democrats who insisted on “single-payer.”
Over time, Kennedy realized his own plan couldn’t succeed
Yes, Obama’s “Romneycare” health plan is to the right of what Republican Nixon proposed, although similar in principle.
Like Reagan, Obama is a pragmatist, who will support what can be done, rather than wait for a purist ideal.
The differance between “Romneycare” and “Obamacare” is that Romney had bipartisan support whereas Obama did not.
That and one was federal the other state.
So what are you trying to say? That just because partisan/bipartisan support is different that one is bad and one is good?
Romney’s plan was given support from both parties so the majority must have felt it was a good fit for their state, Obama has zero support from Republicans. Apparently some felt it was not a good fit for our country. Nobody that voted for it even knew what was in the legislation.
Did Big Bird even exist during Reagan’s Presidency? I heard the statement about BB and Romney never said he’d get rid of BB he would cut FEDERAL funds to PBS, which be honest does not need or even deserve any tax monies.
Obama is not strong on foreign policy the fiasco at Benghazi shows it. Killing Osama was his only option, Can you imagine the political fallout if he had said NO and it got out? And that IS his only foreihn policy gain.
Please grow up.
The world-famous bird has been a central character on Sesame Street for the program’s run, premiering in the first episode. Since Sesame Street premiered in 1969, Big Bird has entertained millions of preschool children. Reagan was in office from 1981 to 1989. I would say that Big Bird did exist during Reagan’s run in office and guess what Big Bird is here and large today. Imagine that.
During war or confrontations there are always innocent lives taken. And there is no place safe no matter how much a facility is reinforced. The four-story US Marine barracks headquarters in Beirut after it was blown up in a suicide bomb attack on Oct. 23, 1983, that killed 241 Marines was one of President Reagan’s lowest point in his political legacy.
Obama has a strong foreign policy, the Repubs are just sorry they had not been the ones to get OBL. Bush tried but failed many times. Two major money funneling wars and no OBL was GW Bushs legacy. Not much to look at except for the swishing sound of money going down the drain that he so proudly left at our door step each and everyone of us. Good day and happy trails to you.
You ask, ” Did Big Bird even exist during Reagan’s Presidency?” Big Bird was created in 1969. Reagan was elected in 1980. I know that Romney can’t do math, but I’ll bet you can figure this one out.
The “P” in PBS is “Public.” PBS (originally called National Educational Television, or NET) was created by the government as a non-commercial network to serve public needs in educational and cultural programming that the commercial networks were not serving. I believe the need is still there. A significant part of PBS and National Public Radio comes from the federal government.
Although it is a teeny tiny fraction of the federal budget, and would have almost zero impact on the deficit if it was cut, it would leave a big hole in PBS and NPR programming. Republicans want to “cut Big Bird” not because of the deficit, because it would have almost no impact there, but for ideological reasons.
Bush, we know, closed the bin Laden desk at the CIA after saying that he didn’t know where bin Laden was and didn’t think it was important.
On his first day in office Obama renewed the hunt for bin Laden, and he has succeeded where Bush failed.
Romney said he wouldn’t move heaven and earth to get bin Laden, and if bin Laden was in Pakistan, he would first ask the Pakistanis for permission (thus tipping his hand and letting bin Laden escape).
So we know how tough Romney is — he would ask the Pakistanis for permission for the U.S. to protect ourselves!
With the drone strikes ordered by Obama, the U.S. has also taken out much of the rest of al Qaida’s top leadership.
No president before Obama has been as tough on China’s trade policies as Obama, and as a result China has let the value of their currency rise by 20%, giving China less of a trade advantage. Obama has brought far more trade suits against China than any previous president.
No president before Obama has put tougher sanctions on Iran than Obama has done. Iran’s economy is being crippled by the sanctions. Romney recklessly talks about war, but when pressed to explain, it turns out he would do exactly what Obama is already doing about Iran.
We are out of Iraq as Obama promised. Obama did in Afghanistan what Bush should have done but did not, and we are now gradually drawing down our forces there.
We put together an alliance that took out Moammar Ghadaffi in Lybia without putting a single soldier on the ground, and with no loss at all of American lives.
Of course the recent attack in Benghazi was tragic, just as the Beruit bombing of the U.S. Marines and our subsequent retreat under Reagan was tragic. It’s true that we can’t always control all foreign events.
You end by telling me to grow up. Of course, I could hurl the same insult to you, but that would be as childish as your statement.
Obama tough on foreign Policy, yea tell that to our Amb.
Benghazi!
Say, that name sounds familiar.
Can’t be that important though.
I mean, come on, if it were really important it’d be at the top of the news section in place of the earth-shaking “What needs to happen for Democrats to win in Maine?”
I feel it isn’t ‘news’ until the media decides it is.
That is funny. The mainstream media caters to the left by not reporting on items that would be detrimental to their agenda, so apparently it is not news if MSNBC, CNN, CBS and the likes feel that it is not.
Breaking news….U.S. special forces denied back up three times during the attack in Benghazi. Navy Seals indicated that the ongoing situation in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 needed a response for back up…….denied. Have mortor operater lasered, need someone to nuetralize the threat….denied. Navy Seals were told by CIA operatives to stand down (not enough information on the situation), which they did not and are now dead. Ambassador Stevens, for weeks was asking for more security for consulate…denied.
The government let those people be murdered rather have a “terrorist” attack on 9-11 in the middle of a Presidential re-election campaign.
reaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone
decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators.
Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There
was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and
why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or
conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military
assets to help the Americans in need?
But aren’t these deaths mere “bumps in the road” as described by the Commander-in-Chief?
Surely, his re-election is far more important in the scheme of things.
The deaths of a few brave and honorable men surely pale by comparison.
Priorities, my friend, priorities.
I am pleased to see that the largest party in the State is no party at all!
Centrists rule! (Or at least we should!).
You can’t have centrism without knowing the extremes….The golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes; one of excess and the other of deficiency..ARISTOTLE.
I will be voting Democratic for one reason only – To put an end to LePage’s (fantasy) dictatorship and kick out his happy band of Republican lackeys.
could fireworks have been legalized under a democrat?
how about increasing the speed limit to 75 north of old town?
or maybe ending maine’s status as a sanctuary state?
cracking down on welfare fraud?
actively trying to balance the budget?
were any of these issues even addressed under our previous democratic rule?
In Maine, the Democrats balanced the budget every year they have been in charge. They just didn’t do it on the backs of the workers of the state, the children in the state, or the families in the state.
um, yes they did do it on the backs of the workers and children.
through bonds. they continuously issued bonds to paper over the debt.
and as i recall, the reason that our liquor rights were legislated to a private company is because we were so broke we needed to sell it to cover us for the year.
Bonds = debt.
which we must pay back, and if we are not the ones to pay it back, then our children do.
so, try again.
Na, The money just appeared out of thin air!!
They balanced the budget by issuing billions of dollars worth of bonds. In layman’s terms, that’s called “borrowing money.” Thankfully, we have LePage to do some of the heavy lifting to ease the bond burden. I just pray that we can have him til 2018. It seems like the whole state is against the wisest governor we have had in my 54 year lifetime.
Dems and repubs are extremist parties now. Idealogues are the parties nominated runners. Both parties need cleansing of the fanatical fringes.
Hades would need to freeze
If we could only get beyond the foolishness of D and R platforms, insecurities and limitations we would all be better off 100% of the time. The most self-demeaning action any person can take in life is voting a straight ticket or never voting in a political diection that is the opposite of their political and habitual limitations. I have had the pleasure of voting both D and R throughout my life while living in D leaning states like Maine, New Hampshire, California and Minnesota…as well as R states like Florida, Texas and Arizona.
Niether D nor R have a monopoly on either knowledge or ability, so we must all vote with our brains without regard to the D or the R.
I think removing the precious letters from the ballot would do wonders to improve the awareness and general political knowledge of the notoriously shallow American voter. Though it’s something that I know would never happen. Both parties rely on such voters.
Think of it as a candid camera scenario though – wouldn’t it be entertaining? To see how a random group of voters fare without their guide? The looks on their faces would be priceless. :D
That is a great idea, but as you stated it would never happen.
The Democrats’ first mistake is to think that they represent the ideological center. Your typical Maine Democrat is to the left of 70% of the country. They believe in the technocracy, that is, they think we can elect and appoint smart enough people to order society such that results are optimized, compared with the results that spring organically from the dynamic interactions of free Americans. I know because I used to be one of them; then I grew up and admited the results do not match the intentions.
I think the only way Dill could win is if she is the only person in Maine that votes. Even then I can’t say she will win but she at least has a chance.
50/50
Robert Long seems rather concerned w/the Democratic party in Maine. His column seems more like a lament than anything. Also notice that all of his “sources” are party hacks. Maybe Mr. Long should actually ask working people why the D’s are falling out of favor. Perhaps it is because their cover has been exposed. Once upon a time, a long time ago, the D’s did actually stand for the working man (& women.) Now that is a complete fallacy. Their views & policy positions are dictated from the national party level down to the states, county, locals. Those views are extreme & out of step w/traditional working folks. The best thing that D’s have going for them is that most of us working people are too busy working – surviving & trying to live the best lives we can to pay too much attention to the very people who are hell bent on taking that away.
Evidently people are fed up with public schools, public highways, public police, child labor laws, social security, medicare, civil rights, paid vacations, 40 hour work week, women’s right to vote….and the things that Democrats traditionally have been in favor of… One tries to think of ONE….just ONE thing that the Republicans have done for the average person….Just ONE..
Maybe that’s your problem. You figure others need to do for you.
Too bad the Democrats and their pressure groups are never satisfied with their own achievements. True statists that they are, they react to every perceived societal imperfection by portraying people as victims and pushing for a new law or set of regulations. They have a hierarchy of victimhood, and woe to the American who is at the bottom of it (straight white Christian males?).
The Democrats who recognize the political philosophy of JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you abut what you can do for your country” are walking away from Progressives who insist that Government will take care of the group hugging huddle mass of populace that will do as they are told by Big Government.
Fat? Salt? Large sodas? Cigarettes? School condoms? Seat belts? Light bulbs? Parental rights? The beat goes on, and it will not stop until Government seizes all control over individual choice. Every bow to Government is a surrendered freedom.
An American baby born today needs voting age Americans to seek out and vote for Freedom candidates this election. JFK Dems know this. Just ONE American baby’s future is the only reason needed let alone all others.
Notice none have responded to you with one thing Republicans have done for the average person.
You just don’t get it and until you open your mind you never will. How is it possible that you have not heard the disgust at both Republicans and Democrats?
Cling to your talking points and shut yourself into your ideology of weakness and dependence if that’s where you feel safe but it’s a big world out there and even bigger if you let the American Constitution protect and inspire your life as intended for each individual American. Plenty of Mainers do and will as long as the Government is restrained from legislating *loving and compassionate* protection from themselves in the name of All Powerful Big Government.
Republicans freed the slaves. They passed civil rights legislation with 80% of GOP reps and senators voting yes (Dem support was about 66%). The GOP leads the way on the right to bear arms. A Republican president created EPA and OSHA (Nixon). And so on.
But for Democrats, there are never enough laws and never enough restrictions on freedom, the lone exception being the freedom to kill an unborn human being.
Look back at the civil rights votes. It was broken down on conservative versus liberal lines. Back then, we had Conservative Republicans/Liberal Republicans, and Conservative Democrats/Liberal Democrats. It was a more fluid party. In fact, in the South, not a single Republican voted for it (the region where we still have our most close minded citizens, also the region where we still have Republican control).
Getting past this simple fact, why do you have to go back 40 years to find one thing that the Republicans have done for the average person? I know they have been in power most of the past 40 years. Why haven’t they done anything to help the people they have been elected to represent?
I reject the faulty premises of your question. you are simply wrong and (demonstrably so) about what can be achieved through the mechanisms of government.
I am in the belief that reducing the size and scope of government is one of the greatest things politicans can do for the average person.
“Evidently people are fed up with public schools, public highways, public police, child labor laws, social security, medicare, civil rights, paid vacations, 40 hour work week, women’s right to vote…”
So all the above are exclusive to the Democate Party. WOW, I would have never guessed that only a liberal could take credit for the fact my children can attend school, I have highways to drive on, there are law enforcement to protect my community. If the left has their way Medicare and Social Security will be broke from all who get enrolled that do not deserve the benefits provided, and if it were not for liberals I would have to work 60-70 hours a week with no vacations and my wife could not vote.
I will have to thank the next liberal I have a chance to speak with.
Reducing the size and scope of goverment and their intrusion into every aspect of our lives might be a start. If we keep going the Dem’s wat Social Security and Medicare will be broke.
Unfortunately, the ‘winning strategy’ for the Democrats involves more government regulation, more government bureaucracy, more social welfare programs, expansion of eligibility for health and welfare programs, and both more borrowing and more taxation to ‘feed’ these new programs.
I feel the pendulum has swung back towards a more sustainable position in the center and Democrats need to be defeated to change their strategy to reflect this major shift in politics. Nothing like defeat to spur on a ‘new winning strategy’.
Clearly with things like the BP oil spill catastrophe, the banking crisis, and the recession we just got out of we need more regulations. The “free market” works no better than Communism does. We need to find a middle ground.
Snowe mentioned “winner take all politics” in her Oped about why she is leaving the Senate–that actually is the title of a book which explains the basic problem: over the past few decades, both Republicans and Democrats have passed legislation that funnels money to the top while taking it away from the middle class (“Winner Take All Politics”).
However, Republicans are now more fully under the control of ultra-rich forces that care little about American and everything about enriching their own vast coffers. Democratic policies, like taxing the wealthy (as Clinton did to erase the deficit, balance the budget and bring down the national debt), creating affordable healthcare for all by taxing the rich, and preventing big corporations from being rewarded for moving operations to China–these are the gateway to restoring the middle class.
The middle class tends to spend in America when it has money to do so. The rich only spend so much, hoard the rest (no economic stimulus, Cayman Islands), or spend vast sums overseas (like factories in China).
Greed has taken over. And if we don’t stop it, it will continue to spend vast sums on unlimited propaganda to create divisions between the suffering peoples of America, the middle class and poor.
Vote Democrat!
LOL….every proposal the democrats have proposed to stem rise of greed, has done nothing but throw fuel on the fire and extracted BILLIONS from the middle class via the well-managed wealth transfer known as government ‘stimulus’.
When you ‘stimulate’ the economy by filtering cash through the fat cats on Wall Street via the Fed Reserve discount window, you are doing nothing but perpetuating failed policy of trickle down economics.
A TRILLION dollars in’stimulus’ and where did it end up? In the hands of fat cat bankers on Wall Street. Presumably where folks like YOU would like it to go, as you continue to scream, more, more, more, while the midle class gets less and less.
Don’t vote for Republicans or Democrats!
The best way for a Democrat to win in maine is for Dill to opt out. King is a Democrat.
All I know is the merchants in my own town have seen their health insurance premiums sky rocket thanks to LD1333 which the Republicans in Augusta pushed through this past legislative session. Now at least one small business had to cease providing health insurance to its employees. Others may follow suit. The Republicans have been anything but a blessing to small business owners. Are we going to see businesses fold and our beautiful Main Street turn into a street of boarded up buildings? If you are on the fence about which party deserves your vote, ask yourself which party really advocates for the middle class. Which party made health care a right for all and which party gave the insurance companies the right to jack up premiums so health insurance isn’t affordable?
Be sure you vote for the candidates of your choice….because a ballot not cast is a voice not heard.
Charlie Summers-
Opposes the ObamaCare Mandate
Has served our country as a member of the military
Opposes the Obama supported Quimby National Park
He has actual history of helping small business in Maine
He is genuinely committed to restoring Maine’s manufacturing base
He is the only one of the three that can go to Washington and get to work on day one..!
Angus King-
He left the State of Maine in a mountain of debt
He is tied with Mike Michaud for doing absolutely nothing to help small business
His history of working with green groups has always taken priority over “everything”
King is a well connected, well financed greenie, who has no intention of increasing manufacturing in Maine.
Cynthia Dill-
Dill “actually” wants to tax the internet…!
Dill isn’t willing to sit still until she bans all gun ownership
As a mindless Quimby minion, Dill has managed to totally offend those North of Bangor
Her views of unionizing, and controlling every aspect of free markets borders on Communism
She has no interest, history or track record of actual economic development, and has never attempted to reach out to the businesses in Northern Maine
Great job — thank you!
Vote Dill!!!
I think the Dems. want King in there.
Charlie Summers is my choice! No on 1 and NO on all 4 Bonds!
Democrats are afraid of another LePage style loss, afraid of King, and the methods that national Democrats used to pass bills are not things that all Democrats can sell to voters. On a state level, Democrats are burdened by those in their party on a national level and illogical decisions made just to pass ideological legislation. If you asked most anyone whether increasing the cost of labor during a bad economy was a good idea, they’d say no. You can see the results, the higher cost of labor is limiting hiring and forcing employers to get more work out of each employee to cover these new costs. Unemployment stays high, and even Democrats know that they can’t sell all the great parts of Obamacare while people are losing their jobs and aren’t getting enough work to even qualify and afford the new mandated insurance coverage.
And Democrats really need to get rid of the stupid “so and so is part of the extremist TEA Party” ads. Those ads sound like someone telling you that Republicans will perform despicable acts on your children. For most people, the ads come off as complete fear-mongering and make me less likely to vote for a Democrat. I mean, some Republicans I really don’t agree with on many issues, but the Democrats don’t make me think of them any better when they use those ads.
king is just another democrat flying under the flag of “independent”
Agreed. just like Bloomberg pretending to be an “Independent.” As if.
1. stop trying to bribe the disadvantaged with entitlements by scaring them that if they don’t vote democrat the republicans will put them on the street. Everyone knows thats not true
2. stop expecting union people to vote democrat every time
3. learn from your mistakes, the past 40 years under your control didn’t work. It’s time to change your methods.
4. Give up on the far left and stay in the middle.
5. Get rid of Emily Cain
True all true. Yet Mr jetson the liberals know that most the people who vote for them aren’t playing with a full sack of marbles and will believe anything they are told.
The real problem is the LACK of candidates. I want to vote for democrates, but this year I am left with no one to vote for. My only real choice is King(who is really a democrat). Dill should opt out. She offers nothing, and will only be a spoiler. The Democratic ticket is left with a bunch of weak puppies. How Sad.
no dems to vote for so you are voting for a dem?
Dah, who would vote for Dill??
A pickle?
Vote Dill!!!
New ideas, Do they mean New ways of taxing people and New way of spending it..
John Baldacci put a 75% death tax in place. What this death tax did do was chase the ultra rich out of Maine.. Never to return to Maine.
Based on the headline I”d be guessing an asteroid strike.
ROMNEY / RYAN 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROMNEY / RYAN 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tax and spend, tax and spend and more taxing and spending—that is the way of the Democrats. For the life of me, I can’t understand why so many Mainers are bent on voting Obama back into office. He spends more than most other presidents combined—a trillion a year that we cannot afford.
Some have said they will vote for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, a vote for Ron Paul becomes a vote for Obama—
The liberal way of thinking had it’s “15 minutes of fame” and now it is a dying breed. People have seen what destruction it has brought to this country since the 60’s. Prior to then, every day felt like the months following 9-11 when we were a united country that cared about each other. It’s why the WWII generation is know as the “Greatest Generation.” Now we fight, argue, post nasty comments, call each other bigots if we disagree, hate God,and numerous other things that have destroyed this country. We’ll slowly get it back to where it used to be, starting with the removal of the guy in the White House.
The short answer?
Field candidates that are actually from this planet, and not somewhere out near Uranus.
If you are a democrat and you vote for Angus you are a traitor to your party and their is no loyalty in you .
A vote for Angus is a vote for a liberal Democrat in independent clothing.
In many key Senate districts, I bet the governor is too conservative for the Republican candidates.
We have too many R wimps who do not stand on the principles set forth in their own platform–so perhaps they should sign up as Democrats and enjoy having the liberals endorse them.
odd comment for a story that highlights the plight of the democrat party and its need to remain relevant
YYou dems are a funny bunch..not real bright…but funny
Well if the dems want room.win they should shave and the men should get hair cuts !
Big Paulie has ruined the GOP’s chances already, nough said.
Graph’s I prefer the pie shaped one’s..
Our businesses pay zero Income tax. It’s called the Cayman Islands discount.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/apr/10/tax-evaders-wall-shame/
Have Mayor Bloomberg move here. He will do wonders. He will make it mandatory to hold your breath for 2 minutes each hour.
why is it that elections are decided by campaign contributions?
our votes don’t matter.
democrat or republican,
our president is selected by the elite, not elected by the people.
“why is it that elections are decided by campaign contributions?” Citizen;’s United? the supreme court believing that they should be ??
Well we will see, if BIG campaign contributions determine the result of this election soon enough or if voters do.
Outside anonymous spending is 3 to one in Romney’s favor: $300 million vs $100 million. There have been many candidate who tried to “buy an election ‘ and failed . Several of them ran for governor last time and nearly fully funded their own campaigns, out of their own pockets, and they all lost. So we will see if money matters or if voters do.
Here’s a break down of contributors in the presidential election.
romney’s top contributors :
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012
and obama’s :
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2012
and a side by side comparison :
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php