Dirges for Democrats

A wingnut with a screw loose.

Moderator: carsonfire

Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:08 am

Howard Dean is advising against the "circular firing squad", but in the process indulges in the usual Dkossian fantasy that the reason they failed is because they just didn't go far enough to the left fast enough, dammit!

Nobody needs a circular firing squad, but being delusional doesn't help, either.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... ustposted2
He's Done Everything Wrong
by Mort Zuckerman

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.




Funny how important media types notice that *just now*. I appreciate Zuckerman being so forthright and honest *now* -- but where has he been???

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

[...]

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:28 am

By contrast, here's the most comprehensive argument I've seen for why this is a sign that Democrats did not and could not have gone too far to the left.

But the argument is completely circular. Basically, it hinges on the assumption that because liberal initiatives have failed, we are as a nation currently far, far to the right; therefore, there's no direction to go but back to the left. No, even that doesn't fully convey the circularness. Here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dao ... 29031.html
The conservative argument is unpersuasive. After years of a systematic effort by the right to use Overton-style tactics to radicalize our national discourse, the center has moved so far right that the left is barely recognizable. With a military surge in Afghanistan, a denuded health insurance bill limping through Congress, Bush-era detainee policies reinforced, a deflated climate summit, and a windfall year for bankers, among other things, it's almost ludicrous to claim that the new administration is run by a gang of lefties.

[meaningless graphic supported by fantasy showing that we are far, far, far to the right]

The question of whether President Obama is too far left or not left enough will be at the center of the message wars in the lead-up to the midterms. And because these two themes have been analyzed and fleshed out in countless articles and blog posts, it's tempting to see the events of the past year exclusively through the prism of one or the other.


Ironically, Afghanistan is one of the few things Obama is polling well on. Notice that there's been little noise about that since he stopped wringing his hands over it. The things that have failed were unpopular with the public. This has helped Obama maintain some semblance of popularity, even though polls also find the public perceives him as weak and ineffectual. Those are not unrelated things. Now that the public has a better idea of who he is and what he's really trying to do, they don't have a kick against him as long as he's failing.

So -- please, yes, PLEASE -- run to the left. Who the hell is stopping you? Your instinct for survival kicked in when conservatives claimed that candidate Obama would go too far to the left in office, and you denied it. WHY? If being a leftist and championing disastrous leftist policy is such a winner, why don't you freaking RUN on that?

Anyway, this braintrust concludes that "compromise and pragmatism only goes so far", which fits right in with the leftist delusion that they've been offering somebody compromise and pragmatism. The health care boondoggle is a case study in resistance to compromise; Democrat disdain for the will of the people is anything but pragmatic.

One more thing: Overton-style tactics by the right? I had never heard of such a thing. I went and looked it up, and found that it's a idea embraced by the left, and the outline of this tactic is actually very descriptive of the left's way of trying to gain political legitimacy for terrible leftist policy. Several of the Wikipedia citations lead right back to DailyKos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. The idea is that priming the public with fringe ideas intended to be and remain unacceptable, will make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison.


So on top of the circular argument, an incredibly strong dose of projection, as well. I have never heard any one on the right talk about gaining traction for conservative ideas in this way. Conservatives are more likely to reach back to tradition, to the founding fathers, the constitution, to common sense, and history. This doesn't restrict experimentation and imagination, but grounds us in reality. That's why conservative policy more often escapes the kind of disastrous unintended consequences of modern liberal/leftist policy. It is the radical demands of the left that have to be introduced in increments, and if the left failed this year, it was because it skipped that tactic for once, thinking it was time to grab the whole enchilada.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:52 am

On Overton-style incrementalism:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31693.html
"I've maintained for months now that incremental reform in the health care package would make much more sense from my perspective," said California Rep. Jim Costa, one of the last Democrats to vote "yes" on the House bill.

He said he'd like to see Obama tell voters that "we may have been overreaching" and then push for a scaled-back bill that focuses on things more people can agree on, like insurance reforms. He said it's not just a question of the House bill versus the Senate bill. "For me, it's broader than that," Costa said.


We have pre-presidential campaign video of Obama also admitting that the radical health care reforms that he and other leftists seek would have to be done incrementally.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby VictorK on Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:45 am

That's not the Overton thing. It's merely retrenching. Overton would be something like advocating torture, so that 'enhanced interrogation techniques' sound reasonable.

You still can't articulate, beyond broad strokes and your feelings, how Obama governed from the left. The Huffpost argument is persuasive; can you even point to one Obama initiative that could be considered leftist? The stimulus is an example of this, a watered down effort that incorporates many Republican ideas (massive tax cuts) with traditional Keynesian stimulus. I've never been a huge fan of the Overton analysis but the Huffpost author would say that such a mild effort which in previous eras would be a matter of course given such a crisis now seems extreme because the GOP has been advocating for years more and more free market solutions. You yourself may be a victim of such tactics; in that you look at Obama and see a radical leftist bent on destroying America where a rational, sane person sees a President no more ambitious than the politically cautious establishmentarian that he is.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:14 am

VictorK wrote:You still can't articulate, beyond broad strokes and your feelings, how Obama governed from the left.


*Still* can't articulate? That's a new challenge made to sound like something you've been asking all along.

But thanks for the invitation. First let's get that Overton thing back out of the way. Obama has essentially admitted to indulging in just that with health care, as Jim Costa does now. Costa even correctly identifies it as incrementalism.

Other incrementalism from the left can be seen in the school system, where sex education (just one example) is pushed to younger and younger levels. The left *has* to indulge in Overton-style incrementalism, because of the relative unpopularity of leftism in the US.

The articles Wikipedia cites at DailyKos show the absurd ways the concept has to be mangled in order to achieve projection. Conservatives have threatened to "close down public schools" in order to gain public acceptance of charter schools and school vouchers; here, you claim that conservatives have gained acceptance for enhanced interrogation technniques by promoting *torture*.

These arguments are delusional in that no one has seriously put forward proposals to close down schools or to create an official torture regime. These things are hallucinations of the left. The public favored tough treatment of terrorists reflexively, as a matter of practicality, not because they've been "conditioned" to accept it. For Overton to apply here, you would have to show some earlier period where US citizens would have felt far differently. If anything, earlier generations would have been far more gung ho under similar circumstances, and would wonder why we're being such idiots.

So it's no wonder that you don't personally like the Overton stuff, because it correctly identifies not the behavior of your political enemies, but puts a glaring light on your own political ideology's necessary tactic. The folks who wrote the DailyKos "articles" (actually just disjointed blog posts) were just more willing to be creative.

Now let's address your "challenge".

You still can't articulate, beyond broad strokes and your feelings, how Obama governed from the left. The Huffpost argument is persuasive; can you even point to one Obama initiative that could be considered leftist? The stimulus is an example of this, a watered down effort that incorporates many Republican ideas (massive tax cuts) with traditional Keynesian stimulus.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leftism
Leftist economic beliefs range from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy and the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning.


Discredited Keynesian economics that you just admitted to, check. The stimulus bill was also written in a way to force states to dramatically increase the welfare rolls in exchange for the cash, check. Then there's the nationalization of the economy that Obama has begun. And of course, the central planning -- the belief that all power needs to be consolidated in one place.

What part of this is unclear to you? Seriously?
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 pm

Oh, and of course, you're always welcome to submit your *own* definition of leftism, in a vain attempt to show how it differentiates between Obama's attempts and your own beliefs.

But I know what you're really up to, here. It's an old tactic from the left -- deal with the unpopularity of your leftist positions by denying that it's "leftism", insinuating that real leftism is something far worse (what, we are never told), and furthermore challenge the idea that there even exists such a thing as "the left". *waving hand like a Jedi master* These are not the Marxists you are looking for!

But hold the phone -- today, Barack "double down" Obama has figured out how to deal with the Brown win in Massachusetts. If you're not sitting down already, you better. See, it's

BUSH'S FAULT!!!

Yes, Massachusetts voters yesterday came out to register the anger they STILL harbor over the LAST EIGHT YEARS. Therefore, electing Brown was voter reaffirmation of HIM and HIS POLICIES.

:o

Not all Democrats are delusional:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31717.html
There is no way for Democrats to spin an upside to losing their 60th vote in the Senate.

Without it, the health care bill that passed one month ago with 60 votes would go down today. Same goes for any other bill Republicans decide to torpedo with unity, obstruction or whatever one wants to call zero votes.

There are ways Democrats can jam through the current health care bill with procedural tricks or legislative creativity. But what seemed a certainty a week ago feels unlikely today. Don't take the word of Republicans or even reporters on this one. Listen to what Democrats are saying as they appraised the results overnight:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) told a local reporter, “It’s probably back to the drawing board on health care, which is unfortunate.” Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) told MSNBC this morning he will advise Democratic leaders to scrap the big bill and move small, more popular pieces that can attract Republicans. And Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said his leadership is “whistling past the graveyard” if they think Brown’s win won’t force a rethinking of the health care plan.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now might draw a challenge from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), said the party needs to rethink its entire approach to governing.

[...]

Any Democrat with even the faintest fear of a tough race in 2010 is rattled. It was easy for some to rationalize the defeats in New Jersey and Virginia last year — and even the flood of polls showing bad news since then.

They are in denial no more: If Democrats can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose anywhere. That is the mind-set that will shape the next nine months for Democrats. It will affect who runs for reelection, who bolts on big votes, who gives money and who speaks out against Obama. All of this will make governing harder.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:26 pm

Evan Bayh, a moderate Democrat that the leftists who populate Dkos and DU despise, has been emboldened to speak out:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... enate.html
Far left has taken over Democratic Party, Sen. Bayh says

Says Bayh to ABC News: "It’s why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message. They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected."

Bayh, once discussed as a VP for the next-door smooth-talking guy from Illinois, predicts fellow Democrats will go into denial tomorrow if state Sen. Brown becomes U.S. Sen. Brown.

"The only we are able to govern successfully in this country," Bayh warns, "is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates. Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country -- that’s not going to work too well.”


The "furthest left elements...attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country." Bayh is free to say that now, that which VK and others have stalwartly denied.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby VictorK on Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:58 pm

carsonfire wrote:But thanks for the invitation. First let's get that Overton thing back out of the way. Obama has essentially admitted to indulging in just that with health care, as Jim Costa does now. Costa even correctly identifies it as incrementalism.


You're still not getting the Overton argument. Overtonism is not incrementalism, which would be analogous to a slippery slope. Overtonism would be saying "the animal control department should shoot all dogs to control rabies" as a way of making the idea "the animal control department should license and and register all dogs to control rabies" more palatable. It's not moving in one direction, it's staking out the far end of a spectrum and then moving back towards the center so that the policy towards the center is more palatable and reasonable, when without that extreme advocacy it might have remained 'outside the window'.

Other incrementalism from the left can be seen in the school system, where sex education (just one example) is pushed to younger and younger levels.


See, this is not Overtonism. Overtonism would be saying that all kids need to read some kind of smut poetry or something and then retrenching and saying that they should get proper sex education instead, a proposal which before smut poetry would have been unacceptable but is now in the middle of the spectrum.

Besides, what's wrong with sex education?

Discredited Keynesian economics that you just admitted to, check. The stimulus bill was also written in a way to force states to dramatically increase the welfare rolls in exchange for the cash, check. Then there's the nationalization of the economy that Obama has begun. And of course, the central planning -- the belief that all power needs to be consolidated in one place.


As you mention in your other post down the way, the definition of leftism is going to be critical to the debate. We can go two ways here, either accepting that what is in the province of the left is broad and incorporates many fundamental and beneficial aspects of our modern society as well as truly radical and harmful ideas or that anything which smacks of the left is radical and harmful and needs to be rejected. If we adopt the first definition then our task is to find those aspects of leftism which are unpopular and which are not; and then to argue that Obama governed from either category or from the right. If we adopt the latter, well, you're going to be in the position of arguing that the United States which was governed by Keynesian economics for fifty years was ruled by leftism during the administrations of such conservatives as Eisenhower and Nixon.

And I don't think that's a very tenable position. To say that something is Keynesian is in fact to say that it is within the moderate sphere, a contribution from the left towards that bundle of governing principles and philosophies which makes up the acceptable and routine functions of a modern government. It may not be accepted in full, or modified from polity to polity, but you cannot escape the fact that the Keynesian economic model is pervasive in the Western world and in the United States, having built the modern American society. To argue that that is leftism which is universally unpopular and must in all instances be hidden from the people lest their natural revulsion cast a politician into the abyss, is to argue for revolution.

Your other example about 'central planning' is unpersuasive. Obama didn't nationalize the banks. Obama didn't nationalize the auto industry. Obama has refrained from imposing new regulations on the financial sector. To call this radical leftism is, simply, nuts.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby Dave.gillam on Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:19 pm

VictorK wrote:See, this is not Overtonism. Overtonism would be saying that all kids need to read some kind of smut poetry or something and then retrenching and saying that they should get proper sex education instead, a proposal which before smut poetry would have been unacceptable but is now in the middle of the spectrum.
Which was actually happening last month when the homo and suspected pedo "school czar" was sent packing, as more of his antics (that the left FULLY suported, btw) were reveiled.

We can go two ways here, either accepting that what is in the province of the left is broad and incorporates many fundamental and beneficial aspects of our modern society
Such as?

or that anything which smacks of the left is radical and harmful and needs to be rejected.
Which much more often seems the case.
If we adopt the first definition then our task is to find those aspects of leftism which are unpopular and which are not;
A few highlights, since you cant seem to grasp them, even after 3 years of articulation
A) Lower Taxes=lower taxes
B) Raising Taxes /= (doesnt equal) spending cut
C) Spending cut=spending cut
D) Taxes should be spent on services, not administration, and more than half a project's budget shouldnt be allocated for bureaucracy
E) People want to keep the money they work so hard for
F) Central planning is less efficient than local planning
G) Big Govt = bad
H) Hypocrisy = even worse :wink:

nd then to argue that Obama governed from either category or from the right. If we adopt the latter, well, you're going to be in the position of arguing that the United States which was governed by Keynesian economics for fifty years was ruled by leftism during the administrations of such conservatives as Eisenhower and Nixon.
As pointed out: according to your hero Chomsky, Nixon is the last liberal president.

To say that something is Keynesian is in fact to say that it is within the moderate sphere, a contribution from the left towards that bundle of governing principles and philosophies which makes up the acceptable and routine functions of a modern government.
Its also been proven a failure when tried for the last 2 decades. Hence the belief that "Liberalism is a failure".

Obama didn't nationalize the banks. Obama didn't nationalize the auto industry.
It became obvious rather quickly that even Dems werent going to support him. He's an idiot, but he does have basic survival instincts.

Obama has refrained from imposing new regulations on the financial sector.
Because it was pointed out, even by Dems, that every time he opened his pie-hole, the Dow dropped another thousand points.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:21 pm

I don't know what else I can do for you, VK. Even moderate Democrats recognize what the left is, and are now saying so. Your nitpicking is screwy. Claiming that Keynesian theory has not been adopted and embraced by the left because it has gained acceptance among leftist intellectuals who pervade the universities is neither here nor there. Claiming I'm not convincing about Obama's central planning is goombly in light of Obama's constant habit of pulling everything in under federal control. Much of the stimulus bill was about setting policy for states that is normally up to the states. Regardless of how you want to trim the tree, it's a tree. The left is the left.

Moving on -- there's a report that leftist idiot Pelosi is "spooked" after a meeting with the Blue Dogs. It may be that yesterday's election was a far bigger boost for moderate Dems than Republicans, and will wind up saving many Dem seats -- held by non-leftist Democrats. Previously, they had been cowed by the very liberal, left-leaning leadership -- now, apparently, they are reading *her* the riot act.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby VictorK on Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:54 pm

Moving on indeed. There's really no point to this conversation anymore.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:01 pm

Dirges drag on...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201001 ... ost/429133
If the policy landscape for Democrats looks a bit grimmer after Tuesday night, the political one seems even worse. The mojo the party had in the past two election cycles has passed, fumbled away to an amorphous anti-establishment, anti-Washington, anti-Wall Street crowd. And the poll numbers released this past week by prominent Democratic consultants Stan Greenberg and James Carville truly tell the story: While 46 percent of the GOP is intensely excited about the elections of 2010, just 33 percent of Democrats feel the same way.


Joe Trippi goes on to echo the bizarre Obama stance, that this defeat for them is really an affirmation of their unpopular policy, which they lied about to get elected in the first place:

"This needs to be a wake up call that people are still demanding change," Joe Trippi, a longtime party strategist and high-ranking official on the Howard Dean and John Edwards campaigns told the Huffington Post. "I don't think it is ideological, I don't think it is left versus right. I think it is outsider versus insider. It is the new way versus people doing it the old way. That is still the carryover from 2008. And whether the Obama administration recognizes that is important. This is a wake up call that they can't play the inside game."


That's back to the pre-Brown saw that this is *just* about incumbents. Are any Republicans in danger because of not supporting ObamaCare?
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby Dave.gillam on Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:24 pm

VictorK wrote:Moving on indeed. There's really no point to this conversation anymore.

Let me guess: "The debate is over" and Carson and I are obstructionists. Right? :roll:
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:18 pm

Clintonite Lanny Davis chimes in: the left took over the Democrat party.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... st_Popular
Somehow, in the last 12 months, we allowed the party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to morph into the party of George McGovern (or more accurately, his most ardent supporters) and Howard Dean, who called for the defeat of the Democratic health-care bill if it had neither a public option or Medicare buy-in. (He couldn’t possibly have been speaking for the 31 million uninsured people in taking that all-or-nothing position.)

In 1996, Mr. Clinton was the first Democrat to win re-election since FDR—expanding the electoral map once again into western, southern, and sunbelt states. He did so by creating a new ideological hybrid for a still-progressive Democratic Party: balanced-budget fiscal conservatism, cultural moderation, and liberal social programs administered by a “lean and mean government.” This New Democrat combination appealed to Ross Perot independents concerned about deficits, and also to traditional Republican suburbanites who were culturally moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights but opposed to high taxes and wasteful, big-government bureaucracy.

Then, in 2008, Barack Obama added something extra: a commitment to a “new politics” that transcended the “red” versus “blue” partisan divide. He explained this concept clearly in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech and during his 2008 presidential campaign. It meant compromise, consensus and bipartisanship, even if that meant only incremental change. The purists on the left of the Democratic Party who demanded the “public option” or no bill at all apparently forgot that candidate Obama’s health-care proposal did not include a public option; nor did it include a government mandate for everyone to either purchase insurance or pay a significant tax approximating the cost of that insurance—the “pay or play provision” in both the Senate and House bills.


Davis is right. Clinton put together a winning combination that was good for the Democrat party, good for himself, and generally good for the American people. But it screwed the left, and so the left have been fighting *against* this successful combination ever since.

Meanwhile, Republicans leaders screwed themselves by abandoning popular Reaganism. While the Democrat party has been destroying itself by listening to DailyKos, the Republican party has been destroying itself by listening to David Brooks.

VK's argument -- I'll speak for him since he's thrown in the towel -- would be to derisively mock; Republicans listen to *Rush Limbaugh*, after all. But that would be to confuse the people with the party. The people listen to Limbaugh, the *party* follows David Brooks. That's why it's in trouble. Both parties have been moving left as the public has been moving right.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:37 pm

Krugman throws Obama under the bus!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... mesKrugman
He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby Dave.gillam on Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Blue Cross/Blue ShieldWas for two decades, the standard of medical care. I could easily see the govt set this as a national plan (since it already is, given the tie to every union in the country, and most employer-providers) and letting it run healthcare parallel to existing plans, with a small sumplimental from the govt for those who cant afford it. If we make it the base, with the promise that the Fed stands behind it (similar to Fannie/Freddi) and open it to employers as well, we will end up with a behemoth, but one that works, and works well.Basic care will be provided at affordable rates, just as it is for unions. Small pay-in, from the millions already paying in (my Union dues were under $100 a month, and that covered my insurance at 80/20 and retirement fund) accepted everywhere, and respected for the quality service. If we hitch tort reform so that doctors arent in fear of frivolous multi-million dollar lawsuits at every corner (my favorite example, based on reality, is the House episode where the patient wants to sue Wilson for telling the patient he's not dying) I see health-care as a strong step towards reformed. Then all we need to figure is what to do for chronic care cases.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:34 pm

Sounds reasonable to me. We have so many pre-existing systems in place, it's simply insane that the only answer Democrats had was to keep layering on new systems, instead of examining what we're already doing that can be done better.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:11 am

That news that seemed to especially jar VK -- that Pelosi has been read the riot act by the Blue Dogs -- seems to be confirmed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34973418/ns ... re_reform/
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she does not have the votes needed to pass the Senate version of the health care bill.

“I don’t see the votes for it at this time,” Pelosi told reporters in a briefing.

After Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate Tuesday after Republicans won an upset victory in the Massachusetts special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, House passage of the current Senate health bill appeared to be one of few options available for Democrats hoping to complete their year-long quest to pass health reform.


On the radio, there are reports that Democrats are now planning to readjust their goals for healthcare reform, and instead concentrate on getting more help to the poor, and to put more curbs on insurance companies.

In other words, health care reform more like the kind that I've been advocating. Target the *problems* instead of trying to uproot the entire system that *most people like and are happy with*.

The founding fathers come through once again. The system is not broken: it worked, and succeeded in moderating the ambitious drive of an out-of-control ideology.

More on candidate Obama lied about health care reform:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/21/h ... by-command
The nice thing about elections is that they give you a choice not only of people but of policies. In the 2008 primaries, for instance, Hillary Clinton offered a health care plan that required everyone to get insurance, while Barack Obama’s blueprint had no such mandate. That was about the only difference in their suggested solutions.

It was a big one, to hear Obama tell it. He aired a TV ad attacking Clinton because her scheme “forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”

He, by contrast, stressed that he would encourage more coverage by offering federal help in paying for it, while trusting in the ultimate wisdom of individual Americans to make their own decisions.

Voters had a clear choice, and they chose Obama and his voluntary plan over Clinton and her compulsory approach. That settled that.

Or so we thought. But something happened after Obama arrived in the Oval Office. His deep faith in the free decisions of ordinary people soon evaporated. Last summer, after the House included a mandate in its legislation, Obama suddenly had a change of heart.


This goes to VK's particular claim that Obama campaigned on "health care reform", and that alone is all we should be looking at.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Dirges for Democrats

Postby carsonfire on Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:27 pm

The Democrat party is in disarray, and it seems to be because Obama is trying to stay above it all -- so far above it that nobody knows what's going on:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 ... Page3.html
“On the day after Brown’s win, panicky House Democrats convened in the Capitol to discuss post-Massachusetts strategy, with some in attendance complaining about what they believed to be continued White House disengagement.

“We all pretty much knew for sure we were going to lose Massachusetts,” one person in attendance told POLITICO on Wednesday. “And yet, last night and this morning, we had absolutely no message guidance from the White House, [the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] or [the Democratic National Committee]. There was no leadership. … So all of the members today are just opining about what they think it means and whether we should move forward on health care.”


I hate to say I told you so on something else, but a time like this shows where having President Hillary Clinton would have been at least beneficial to the party, not to mention doing less to rattle and unnerve the nation's economy.

Even with Hillary's shortcomings, there's probably little doubt that Bill could be put to excellent use -- at the very least, acting as sort of an unofficial emissary to the house, in order to keep panic from setting in.

Bush had a guy like that, too. His name was Dick Cheney. Obama simply doesn't have an experienced hand at his disposal; he only has his familiar Chicago machine-types by his side, who don't really know how to do anything but bust knuckles.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

 

Return to Winger

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron