About Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie

  • In the end none of these debates will matter.  Either vote for Scott Brown because you are worried about the direction of our country. Or vote for Martha Coakly simply because she is a women or because your union said so

  • This would appear to be a very clear difference between the two candidates.  Martha supports whatever the Democrats put forward even if she at first opposed it.  Scott will not support a bill that makes health care worse for many American and leave million uncovered in spite of significant tax increases.  

    Talking points could include:

    1) In spite of President Obama’s campaign pledge not to increase taxes on people earning less than $250,000 per year, the Health Care legislation supported by Martha does just that in multiple places:

     a) “Cadillac” plans will have a surcharge placed on them at the insurance company level which will be passed through to the ultimate consumer.  As many of these plans are union plans, including municipal employees, they will face increased costs.  Scott needs to point out that municipal employees will be paying more to finance the expansion of health care as supported by Martha.

     b) Small business owners will be crushed by the requirement to provide benefits even if only one employee would be “subsidized” by the government.  This will hurt job creation at a time when it is sorely needed.

     c) The requirement to buy insurance or be penalized is un-American and most likely unconstitutional yet a lawyer and state attorney general who is sworn to uphold the Constitution supports unconstitutional legislation.  What will she not support when told to do so by Democrat leadership?

     d) Taxes begin years before the benefits are provided.  This means that voters will be paying for benefits that they are not receiving.  This will cause confusion and anger once explained to the voters.

      e) The Nebraska Compromise whereby a single state is treated differently than other states, including MA, whereby we will be asked to subsidize Nebraska’s insurance expansion.  Other state AGs have vowed to fight this provision as unconstitutional.  Where is Martha on protecting the rights of MA residents?  Is she willing to trade our rights for a Senate seat?

    Time to push hard while she is on the side that is hard to explain and shows her as an opportunist who will sell out her state to get her senate seat.

  • CapeCodRepublican

     On the comment on Israel. If Israel were attacked we would support Israel as if it was an attack on the US. We have a treaty with Israel. It has been there for a long time. Iran attacks Israel we would most likely have to respond, that’s if the present President has the guts to do so.

    Coakley’s comment, when we are attacked by a nation we can respond to? She has No clue on this War on Terrorism. Bin Laden declared War on us in 1995. Clinton did nothing. When we were attacked on 9/11 Congress Declared War. We presently are still in a State of War until Congress reverses its declaration.

    Scott Brown clearly showed why he should be elected to the US Senate. Coakley show us why we need him in the Senate.

    Get the Vote out on Jan 19th. Scott will send another shot heard around the world!!

  • … I’m guessing no one new caught the debate that was live streamed but not televised on the Dec 22nd (but covered by a poor debate write up by the newspapers), available online and televised at 8am on WBZ TV on Sunday Dec 28th, and aired today at 7pm on WSBK.

    Worst debate presentation by a network ever.  Really, why did they bother?

  • This wasn’t even close – and it is why Brown really has no chance of winning. Joe Kennedy had the correct answer on each question.

    But really all you needed to watch was the first question on healthcare. Brown is against the national plan because we already have something in place here. He does not go after it on any principle (such as freedom, cost, basic economics, etc.).

    On Cash for Clunkers – Brown said it had marginal benefits. He did not go after it for being a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.

    If the candidate running on the GOP ticket was someone like Joe Kennedy, this might actually be a race. Further, if Republicans want to have any hope of winning elections in this state, they need to actually talk the talk and walk the walk of fiscal conservatism.