While on a personal level I'd find this kind of fortitude admirable if he actually goes through with it, I don't think it's smart politics. If he couldn't sell his plan to the liberal population of Massachusetts what makes him so confident that he can successfully recalibrate and sell his message to the voters while at the same time convincing spooked blue dogs and/or disgusted progressives to vote for the current health care bill?
Of course one could also argue that to retreat and pull back would be a fatal mistake in and of itself. He'd be blasted for wasting a year and doing nothing to help end the recession, except of course for the stimulus and bailouts that a lot of voters didn't like. So given that, one could argue he has no choice but to gamble. Better to go down swinging then to retreat and be defeated anyways.
What do you guys think?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31629.html
QuotePresident Obama plans combative turn
By MIKE ALLEN | 1/18/10 7:05 PM EST
President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday's special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.
"This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt," a senior administration official said. "It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard."
A defeat by Martha Coakley for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy would be embarrassing for the party — and potentially debilitating, since Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof, 60-vote hold on the Senate.
A potential casualty: the health care bill that was to be the crowning achievement of the president's first year in office.
The health care backdrop has given the White House a strong incentive to strike a defiant posture, at least rhetorically, in response to what would be an undeniable embarrassment for the president and his party.
There won't be any grand proclamation that "the era of Big Government is over" — the words President Bill Clinton uttered after Republicans won the Congress in the 1990s and he was forced to trim a once-ambitious agenda.
"The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall," a presidential adviser said. "The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, 'At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.'"
Whatever words Obama chooses, however, will have trouble masking the substantive reality: A Massachusetts embarrassment would strongly increase the pressure Obama was already facing to retreat or slow down the "big bang" agenda he laid out a year ago.
Democratic operatives on Capitol Hill have made clear that enthusiasm is cooling for tackling controversial cap-and-trade legislation to curb carbon emissions as the party heads into an election year. The same is true for the always-sensitive issue of immigration reform. On the fiscal front, massive deficits were already pushing Obama toward more austerity on spending.
Perceptions among the pundit class would also be brutal. An upset by Republican Scott Brown would be covered in many quarters as a repudiation of Obama, especially after Obama's last-ditch campaign appearance with Coakley 36 hours before the polls opened.
But the president's advisers plan to spin it as a validation of the underdog arguments that fueled Obama's insurgent candidacy.
"The painstaking campaign for change over two years in 2007 and 2008 has become a painstaking effort in the White House, too," the official said. "The old habits of Washington aren't going away easy."
The White House rallying cry, according to one Obama confidant, will be, "Buckle up — let's get some stuff done."
The kind of stuff, however, will be different than what Obama emphasized when he roared into office a year ago Wednesday. White House strategists will be looking for modest victories that can be pulled off at a time when endangered Democrats will be even more gun-shy of tough votes than they were last year.
Aides say that in his State of the Union address on Jan. 27 and in his budget on Feb. 1, Obama will unflinchingly roll out real fiscal austerity measures that they say will draw flak from both sides of the aisle.
Already Obama's rhetoric is reflecting what aides acknowledge is a strong undercurrent of populist anger. By these lights, impatience with the status quo — rather than any rightward turn in the mood of the electorate — is what would fuel a Brown victory.
Reflecting his new tone, Obama last week announced a new fee on big banks by vowing, "We want our money back, and we're going to get it.". At a House Democratic retreat a few hours later, he said leaders need to be "fighting for the American people with the same sense of urgency that they feel in their own lives."
In his weekly address on Saturday, he declared: "We're not going to let Wall Street take the money and run." Saluting Martin Luther King Jr. in remarks to a Baptist congregation the next day, Obama railed against "an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise."
At the rally for Coakley, he added: "Bankers don't need another vote in the United States Senate. They've got plenty."
White House senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters that Democrats will not allow the midterm elections to become "a referendum on this administration" but, instead, will force Republicans to defend the role they have played in the economic crisis.
And press secretary Robert Gibbs said a key theme of 2010 will be asking voters "whether the people they have in Washington are on the side of protecting the big banks, whether they're on the side of protecting the big oil companies, whether they're on the side of protecting insurance companies or whether they're on the people's side."
Democrats looking for shards of hope in a grim week say they take some consolation in having their political straits exposed early in the midterm election year, in contrast to their much later wake-up call before the Republican revolution of 1994.
And one Democrat pointed out: "It's not as if having 60 votes in the Senate has made life a walk in the park."
The narrower majority will force more White House engagement with Republicans, which could actually help restore a bit of the post-partisan image that was a fundamental ingredient of his appeal to voters.
"Now everything that gets done in the Senate will have the imprimatur of bipartisanship," another administration official said. "The benefits of that will accrue to the president and the Democratic Senate. It adds to the pressure on Republicans to participate in the process in a meaningful way, which so far they have refused to do."
More defensively, Obama advisers plan to argue that Coakley's lackluster campaign contributed at least as much to the loss as the national environment.
"You can say it's a rejection of the agenda," a top Democrat said. "But it's just as valid to say it's frustration with the way things are going in the country and that people still want change."
:mellow:
Whether or not Brown wins has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the very poor campaign Coakley has run.
In short, if Brown wins Obama is fucked.
This constant wondering about "Will Obama lasts - Is it Obama's death breat - Whaaa, when will somebody save us from Obama!" is getting really tiresome. The man was elected fair and square so deal with it you whiny bitches. <_<
G.
Quote from: Grallon on January 19, 2010, 07:44:15 AM
This constant wondering about "Will Obama lasts - Is it Obama's death breat - Whaaa, when will somebody save us from Obama!" is getting really tiresome. The man was elected fair and square so deal with it you whiny bitches. <_<
Do you see anyone disputing that fact? :blink:
If you're referring to the 'birther' movement, that's a fringe lunatic movement and there are no posters on Languish who ascribe to it, not even Hansie (I know, it seems like something that would draw him in).
I think you might be confusing the 2008 election with the 2000 election.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 07:47:35 AM
I think you might be confusing the 2008 election with the 2000 election.
I think he is confusing seperation of powers with a parliamentary system.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 07:47:35 AM
If you're referring to the 'birther' movement, that's a fringe lunatic movement and there are no posters on Languish who ascribe to it, not even Hansie (I know, it seems like something that would draw him in).
I think you might be confusing the 2008 election with the 2000 election.
I'm not refering to the legality of his election, which raised valid concerns in 2000, I'm talking about the constant voicing of doubts about the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. And it comes from more than just the fringe lunatics...
G.
Quote from: Grallon on January 19, 2010, 07:52:13 AM
I'm not refering to the legality of his election, which raised valid concerns in 2000, I'm talking about the constant voicing of doubts about the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. And it comes from more than just the fringe lunatics...
No one in this thread has said a single thing about legitimacy. We're talking about pure power.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 07:47:35 AM
Quote from: Grallon on January 19, 2010, 07:44:15 AM
This constant wondering about "Will Obama lasts - Is it Obama's death breat - Whaaa, when will somebody save us from Obama!" is getting really tiresome. The man was elected fair and square so deal with it you whiny bitches. <_<
Do you see anyone disputing that fact? :blink:
If you're referring to the 'birther' movement, that's a fringe lunatic movement and there are no posters on Languish who ascribe to it, not even Hansie (I know, it seems like something that would draw him in).
I think you might be confusing the 2008 election with the 2000 election.
Apperently, Republicans. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html
Seems 52% of them think that Acorn stole the election for Obama.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 07:40:52 AM
:mellow:
Whether or not Brown wins has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the very poor campaign Coakley has run.
I wonder. It's a bit much to say that Obama's policies have had nothign to do with the Democrat loss in Massachussetts,
and New Jersey,
and Virginia.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 08:01:20 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 07:47:35 AM
Quote from: Grallon on January 19, 2010, 07:44:15 AM
This constant wondering about "Will Obama lasts - Is it Obama's death breat - Whaaa, when will somebody save us from Obama!" is getting really tiresome. The man was elected fair and square so deal with it you whiny bitches. <_<
Do you see anyone disputing that fact? :blink:
If you're referring to the 'birther' movement, that's a fringe lunatic movement and there are no posters on Languish who ascribe to it, not even Hansie (I know, it seems like something that would draw him in).
I think you might be confusing the 2008 election with the 2000 election.
Apperently, Republicans. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html
Seems 52% of them think that Acorn stole the election for Obama.
I'd like to see how that question was actually worded.
And I bet that a good number of those who said that Acorn stole the election just said it as a "take that" against the MoveOn types.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 08:53:41 AM
I'd like to see how that question was actually worded.
We had this before. The question was worded pretty straight. "Do you think ACORN stole (helped to steal?) the election for Obama."
I wonder if this will be like the Pittburgh Steelers 'unleashing hell' in December?
Hrmm.
QuoteForty-nine percent say the president has done too much for the banks, and 37 percent think he's done too much for U.S. auto makers. At the same time, 54 percent say he's done too little for the middle class, six in 10 think he's done too little for small businesses and a plurality says he's done too little for homeowners.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6113290.shtml
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 08:04:16 AM
I wonder. It's a bit much to say that Obama's policies have had nothign to do with the Democrat loss in Massachussetts, and New Jersey, and Virginia.
While I can't say anything definitive on two of those states besides stuff everyone else already knows, I can assure you that Obama had nothing to do with New Jersey result. Corzine was deeply unpopular on his own merits for far longer than Obama has been a president. I think we let the morons on cable news networks dictate too much of a narrative.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 08:04:16 AM
I wonder. It's a bit much to say that Obama's policies have had nothign to do with the Democrat loss in Massachussetts, and New Jersey, and Virginia.
While I can't say anything definitive on two of those states besides stuff everyone else already knows, I can assure you that Obama had nothing to do with New Jersey result. Corzine was deeply unpopular on his own merits for far longer than Obama has been a president. I think we let the morons on cable news networks dictate too much of a narrative.
Oh, being from Jersey I'm well aware. But how many times do Democrats have to lose before we say part of hte problem is Obama?
Quote from: Grallon on January 19, 2010, 07:44:15 AM
This constant wondering about "Will Obama lasts - Is it Obama's death breat - Whaaa, when will somebody save us from Obama!" is getting really tiresome.
So... to keep you happy we should only voice praise for Obama? :unsure:
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 08:04:16 AM
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 07:40:52 AM
:mellow:
Whether or not Brown wins has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the very poor campaign Coakley has run.
I wonder. It's a bit much to say that Obama's policies have had nothign to do with the Democrat loss in Massachussetts, and New Jersey, and Virginia.
As a resident of Massachusetts it seems quite clear to me that this election is at least as much to do with the national political scene and people's anger over it as anything with Coakley running a bad campaign. I'd say her bad campaign hurt her for sure, but isn't the worst of her problems, since a pretty well known Democrat like her (won the primaries against some decent Dems) should be doing quite well in this final election. I feel that the Democratic party leadership shouldn't continue finding too many other local reasons instead of putting some good blame on the national scene. Or keep ignoring national implications at their own folly. Even if Brown just does well that would be a good sized change for Massachusetts.
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2010, 10:49:34 AM
So... to keep you happy we should only voice praise for Obama? :unsure:
A little less bad faith when criticizing his policies would please me better.
G.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 10:45:56 AM
Oh, being from Jersey I'm well aware. But how many times do Democrats have to lose before we say part of hte problem is Obama?
After November we can say that. However, even then, Obama's biggest fault would be being the target of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 10:31:50 AM
While I can't say anything definitive on two of those states besides stuff everyone else already knows, I can assure you that Obama had nothing to do with New Jersey result. Corzine was deeply unpopular on his own merits for far longer than Obama has been a president. I think we let the morons on cable news networks dictate too much of a narrative.
:yes:
Quote from: Grallon on January 19, 2010, 11:30:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2010, 10:49:34 AM
So... to keep you happy we should only voice praise for Obama? :unsure:
A little less bad faith when criticizing his policies would please me better.
So I take it you feel guilty now for all your anti-Bush vitriol? ;)
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2010, 12:21:40 PM
So I take it you feel guilty now for all your anti-Bush vitriol? ;)
Except that the Cheney Administration worked hard to deserve all the vitriol it got. ;)
G.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2010, 09:02:33 AM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 08:53:41 AM
I'd like to see how that question was actually worded.
We had this before. The question was worded pretty straight. "Do you think ACORN stole (helped to steal?) the election for Obama."
Is it impossible to think that ACORN might've engaged in voter fraud and attempted to steal the election without Obama actually needing them to win or having had any knowledge whatsoever of their activities?
Quote from: Habbaku on January 19, 2010, 12:51:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2010, 09:02:33 AM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 08:53:41 AM
I'd like to see how that question was actually worded.
We had this before. The question was worded pretty straight. "Do you think ACORN stole (helped to steal?) the election for Obama."
Is it impossible to think that ACORN might've engaged in voter fraud and attempted to steal the election without Obama actually needing them to win or having had any knowledge whatsoever of their activities?
ACORN provided Obama with victory. There's no question about it. I saw it on FOXNEWS.
Quote from: Habbaku on January 19, 2010, 12:51:43 PM
Is it impossible to think that ACORN might've engaged in voter fraud and attempted to steal the election without Obama actually needing them to win or having had any knowledge whatsoever of their activities?
Eminently possible. But that's not what the survey question asked.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 10:31:50 AM
While I can't say anything definitive on two of those states besides stuff everyone else already knows, I can assure you that Obama had nothing to do with New Jersey result. Corzine was deeply unpopular on his own merits for far longer than Obama has been a president. I think we let the morons on cable news networks dictate too much of a narrative.
And an upstate New York house race was part of that narrative until the Democrats won and it was conveniently forgotten.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2010, 01:19:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2010, 10:31:50 AM
While I can't say anything definitive on two of those states besides stuff everyone else already knows, I can assure you that Obama had nothing to do with New Jersey result. Corzine was deeply unpopular on his own merits for far longer than Obama has been a president. I think we let the morons on cable news networks dictate too much of a narrative.
And an upstate New York house race was part of that narrative until the Democrats won and it was conveniently forgotten.
NY23 was a victory for conservatives. It proved that the Tea Party Movement will define our generation of politics similar to civil rights activists of the 60s.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2010, 07:25:17 AM
While on a personal level I'd find this kind of fortitude admirable if he actually goes through with it, I don't think it's smart politics. If he couldn't sell his plan to the liberal population of Massachusetts what makes him so confident that he can successfully recalibrate and sell his message to the voters while at the same time convincing spooked blue dogs and/or disgusted progressives to vote for the current health care bill?
It's brilliant politics. If the bill fails nothing bad comes of it, health care remains broken and Barack can blame the Republicans. The Republicans would be better off if Coakley won, or if they didn't filibuster; that way whatever problems there are with the bill become the fault of the Democrats and can be exploited in the next election cycle.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 19, 2010, 06:06:27 PM
It's brilliant politics. If the bill fails nothing bad comes of it, health care remains broken and Barack can blame the Republicans.
It didn't work for Clinton in '93-'94. The Republicans blocked health care Reform, and were rewarded with a Congressional majority.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2010, 09:02:33 AM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2010, 08:53:41 AM
I'd like to see how that question was actually worded.
We had this before. The question was worded pretty straight. "Do you think ACORN stole (helped to steal?) the election for Obama."
We did go over this before but the question was not at all clear-cut: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?" The pretense here is that these are the only two possible outcomes, which is false. If you think that Obama didn't "legitimately" win but don't even know what Acorn is, how do you vote? You don't vote "don't know" because you do know.
As I pointed out at the time, this poll looks pretty crap to me.
I don't think adding "I don't know" would make the poll any better. Especially when you deal with crazy conspiracy theories which tend to buttress themselves with ignorance. Sometimes "I don't know" is a valid answer (Do you think it will rain next week?), other times it just isn't (Do you think the earth is controlled by lizard people).
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 07:51:12 PM
I don't think adding "I don't know" would make the poll any better. Especially when you deal with crazy conspiracy theories which tend to buttress themselves with ignorance. Sometimes "I don't know" is a valid answer (Do you think it will rain next week?), other times it just isn't (Do you think the earth is controlled by lizard people).
Yeah, but an election delivered by fraud isn't really all that crazy, given the extensive history of American electoral fraud. These days it's far more difficult than at any time before, but within living memory of many voters there was an election that was won fraudulently (1960).
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2010, 07:57:35 PM
Yeah, but an election delivered by fraud isn't really all that crazy, given the extensive history of American electoral fraud. These days it's far more difficult than at any time before, but within living memory of many voters there was an election that was won fraudulently (1960).
Not really. Kennedy didn't need Illinois.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2010, 08:01:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2010, 07:57:35 PM
Yeah, but an election delivered by fraud isn't really all that crazy, given the extensive history of American electoral fraud. These days it's far more difficult than at any time before, but within living memory of many voters there was an election that was won fraudulently (1960).
Not really. Kennedy didn't need Illinois.
He needed Illinois and Texas.
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2010, 08:04:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2010, 08:01:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2010, 07:57:35 PM
Yeah, but an election delivered by fraud isn't really all that crazy, given the extensive history of American electoral fraud. These days it's far more difficult than at any time before, but within living memory of many voters there was an election that was won fraudulently (1960).
Not really. Kennedy didn't need Illinois.
He needed Illinois and Texas.
He won Texas. Republicans didn't make inroads into the state until the 70s and 80s.
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2010, 08:04:23 PM
He needed Illinois and Texas.
No, he needed Illinois OR Texas. He won 303-219 with both.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2010, 08:22:52 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2010, 08:04:23 PM
He needed Illinois and Texas.
No, he needed Illinois OR Texas. He won 303-219 with both.
But those were the states that were fraudulently taken by the Democratic machine.
With 25% in...Go Brown!
Brown up by 5% according to Fox News. :cool:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 07:51:12 PM
I don't think adding "I don't know" would make the poll any better. Especially when you deal with crazy conspiracy theories which tend to buttress themselves with ignorance. Sometimes "I don't know" is a valid answer (Do you think it will rain next week?), other times it just isn't (Do you think the earth is controlled by lizard people).
What would make the poll better would be to ask questions that can be answered in that format. "Do you think it will rain next week, or do you think the earth is controlled by lizard people?" isn't a very good question for that format. "Do you think Obama won the election legitimately? (Yes/No/Undecided)" would work. If one is interested in following up on ACORN (rather than push-polling) one would then ask "If you answered no above, do you think his lack of legitimacy comes from ACORN's help? (yes/No/Undecided)"
The way the issue was actually push-polled, I think it is useless except to help stir up polemics.
I wonder if you can still pay him to take off his clothes after he's elected.
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 08:54:48 PM
Brown up by 5% according to Fox News. :cool:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/19/2179148.aspx
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 08:56:39 PM
I wonder if you can still pay him to take off his clothes after he's elected.
Earlier I predicted that the gay vote would put him over the top. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 08:57:51 PM
Earlier I predicted that the gay vote would put him over the top. :cool:
I'm gay and I called my parents! :w00t:
As garbon goes, so goes the nation. :showoff:
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 08:57:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 08:56:39 PM
I wonder if you can still pay him to take off his clothes after he's elected.
Earlier I predicted that the gay vote would put him over the top. :cool:
I suspect that's true. Worthless cocksuckers. <_<
Quote from: Caliga on January 19, 2010, 09:01:16 PM
As garbon goes, so goes the nation. :showoff:
My platform still needs more work.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 09:02:57 PM
I suspect that's true. Worthless but costly cocksuckers. <_<
Fixed. :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2010, 09:02:57 PM
I suspect that's true. Worthless cocksuckers. <_<
Coakley failed to go into detail about her great love of bottoming and glory holes. :(
Sounds like time for Plan B.
"Voter fraud!" :cool:
Well, I guess we should be expecting someone coming along to tell us that this is the end of the Democratic party.
Still, it'll be nice that they have to reign in their smugness.
CNN and Fox both just called it for Brown.
HECKUVA JOB BROWNIE :bowler:
:nelson: x100
:w00t:
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2010, 06:09:07 PM
It didn't work for Clinton in '93-'94. The Republicans blocked health care Reform, and were rewarded with a Congressional majority.
I think Obama is in a different position than Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama made health care reform a center piece of their campaigns, but Clinton didn't have the majority popular vote, while Obama did. More importantly Obama is a gifted demagogue and has a knack for finding scapegoats; while Clinton's attempts at demonizing his opponents usually came across as whining.
Republicans have saved the Union from the abyss. Now the fight begins to stop any significant legislation from passing until 2011. :showoff:
Quote from: Faeelin on January 19, 2010, 08:04:16 AM
I wonder. It's a bit much to say that Obama's policies have had nothign to do with the Democrat loss in Massachussetts, and New Jersey, and Virginia.
I think that would be overstating it.
But here's what I notice about those three races that I think is quite interesting. In MA you have a liberal Republican - from what he's said in the past - and in Virginia you had a socially conservative Republican running as a pragmatic, government-focused guy and in New Jersey you have the same.
In the UK by-elections are very different from general ones. People feel they can make a statement, they tend to be far more localised rather than deciding the next government and the parties very often try out new tactics there. I don't know if it's the same in the US. However these look to me like the Republican equivalent of the sort of candidates that Rahm was recruiting in 2006. If the Republicans are able to do that nationwide then I think they could have a very good year. If, however, on a national level they go more of the Sarah Palin route then I think the Democrats may lose seats due to dissatisfaction - but it'll be like Tip O'Neill's victory, not Gingrich's.
I've always said that I agree with that old saying that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. But I add one proviso that all an opposition party has to do is appear responsible and ready for government. If the face of the GOP in 2010 is like Brown, Christie or McDonnell then I think they could do very well (I'd add Pawlentey - though I loath him - and Boehner to that list). If however they are represented by people like Palin, Cantor and you see known quantities lose primary challenges to conservatives then though they may win a few seats it'll get them little.
QuoteDemocrats see Mass. message: Jobs, jobs, jobs
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer
WASHINGTON – Wounded in Massachusetts, frustrated Democrats on Wednesday urged the White House to focus on jobs and the economy — not the health care overhaul that's now at risk — and pressed President Barack Obama to more forcefully make their case against Republicans ahead of potentially disastrous elections this fall.
On the day after the improbable Senate election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Obama and his Democratic Party raced to re-evaluate their midterm election strategy, adjust their health care approach and assuage an angry electorate. The embarrassing defeat to the GOP in a Democratic stronghold was a bitter end to the president's first year in office, and it triggered furious party soul-searching.
"I would like the Democratic Party as a whole including its leader, the president, to speak clearly about the differences and to define those differences," Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Senate Democrats' campaign effort, told The Associated Press. And it's not just about Republicans and Democrats, he said: "We have to do a much better job of both engaging and delivering to independent voters."
Obama himself owned up to a failure to communicate.
In a year of hopping from crisis to crisis, he told ABC News, "we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., put it more simply, assessing the message Massachusetts sent. "Economy, economy, economy," she said.
"We need a jobs bill. We need short-term, focused strategies to create jobs, real fast," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. "If the dominant message isn't about jobs and spending, we'll be making a difficult challenge exponentially more difficult."
At the Capitol, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., declared, "If there's anybody in this building that doesn't tell you they are more worried about elections today, you should absolutely slap them."
Indeed, there was a grim sense among Democrats that if the GOP could win in a traditionally deeply liberal state, Massachusetts, it could probably win anywhere.
Said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.: "Every state is now in play."
Democrats still have majority control of both the House and Senate. But Tuesday's GOP upset for the seat long held by the Sen. Edward Kennedy — following Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey last fall for Democratic-held gubernatorial seats — was a sign of serious trouble this fall. Even when the economy is strong, the party holding the White House historically loses seats in midterms.
Despite the loss that gave Republicans a 41st vote in the 100-seat Senate, neither Democrats nor most Republicans said they thought control of Congress could be up for grabs. But both parties expect big Republican gains, and fewer Democratic seats would make it more difficult for Obama to pass his agenda.
"I'm not under any illusion that we can take anything for granted. We have to fight," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
On the anniversary of his inauguration, Obama faced a need to reevaluate both his policy — specifically his endangered health care plan — and his politics in a White House stunned by a shift in the mood of the electorate from just a year earlier. Voters were hopeful and supportive then. They are cranky and belligerent now. Of utmost concern: independent voters who have fled to the GOP after a year of Wall Street bailouts, enormous budget deficits and partisan wrangling over health care.
"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years," Obama told ABC in an interview.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters: "That anger is now pointed at us because we're in charge. And rightly so."
From the White House to Capitol Hill, Democrats appeared more determined than devastated after the Massachusetts outcome as they huddled to chart a new way forward.
Obama's sweeping health care overhaul was the most urgent matter at hand.
The president and his fellow Democrats wrestled with options now that they were one vote shy of the 60-vote Senate supermajority they were counting on to block Republican delaying tactics.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared the overall measure dead and added: "The president ought to take this as a message to recalibrate how he wants to govern, and if he wants to govern from the middle we'll meet him there."
In light of Brown's victory, Obama said it's time to come together around a bill that can draw Republican support, too.
"The people of Massachusetts spoke," Obama said in the interview.
Said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "We will move forward with their considerations in mind, but we will move forward."
Just how remained to be seen.
In the longer term, Democrats said the White House should do more to reduce unemployment, given that economists expect joblessness to remain near 10 percent through November.
The White House already has begun pivoting to a jobs agenda, and Gibbs said of the president: "We will have him continue to focus on the economy and jobs."
Several Democratic officials characterized the party rank-and-file lawmakers as frustrated by a seeming White House hesitation to get involved in high-stakes races until it's too late, like the Senate race in Massachusetts as well as the Virginia and New Jersey contests last fall.
These Democrats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering the White House, say there's a sense that Obama and his advisers are too cautious and more focused on his 2012 fortunes than on helping Democratic candidates get elected in 2010. They want Obama to use his White House perch to embrace his role as Democratic Party chief.
"There's no doubt that the White House, which has a big megaphone, needs to make sure that the contrasts are very clear to the public," Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the House Democrats' campaign committee, told the AP.
To be sure, Obama has started laying out a sharper contrast with Republicans by hammering them for opposing his proposed bank bailout tax. He's sought to paint Democrats on the side of taxpayers and Republicans on the side of special interests and Wall Street, trying out that pitch when he rushed to Boston in an effort to save Democrat Martha Coakley. It didn't work in just two days.
Said Menendez: "We knew we had a winning argument. We just got it too late in Massachusetts."
Despite Coakley's loss, Democrats urged their House and Senate candidates to embrace Obama's Wall Street vs. Main Street contrast to tap into voter anger.
Senate Democrats were examining their campaigns to ensure messages are calibrated to the volatile electorate and candidates are focused on jobs, the economy and spending. An edict went out from Menendez that candidates should aggressively define themselves as change agents and their Republican opponents as representing a step backward.
Republicans, for their part, reveled in Brown's victory. They have found what they believe is a surefire recipe for GOP candidates to win against a popular president — focus on opposition to his policies, downplay overtly political Republican ties, and embrace voter anger with populist appeals to ride an antiestablishment wave.
Associated Press Writers Jennifer Loven, Laurie Kellman, Ben Evans, Sam Hananel, Larry Margasak, and Jim Abrams contributed to this report.
Quote from: citizen k on January 20, 2010, 11:26:35 PM
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., put it more simply, assessing the message Massachusetts sent. "Economy, economy, economy," she said.
"We need a jobs bill. We need short-term, focused strategies to create jobs, real fast," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. "If the dominant message isn't about jobs and spending, we'll be making a difficult challenge exponentially more difficult."
Activate the porkalizer. :bleeding:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2010, 07:25:17 AM
A defeat by Martha Coakley for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy would be embarrassing for the party — and potentially debilitating, since Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof, 60-vote hold on the Senate.
A potential casualty: the health care bill that was to be the crowning achievement of the president's first year in office.
The health care backdrop has given the White House a strong incentive to strike a defiant posture, at least rhetorically, in response to what would be an undeniable embarrassment for the president and his party.
There won't be any grand proclamation that "the era of Big Government is over" — the words President Bill Clinton uttered after Republicans won the Congress in the 1990s and he was forced to trim a once-ambitious agenda.
"The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall," a presidential adviser said. "The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, 'At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.'"
Whatever words Obama chooses, however, will have trouble masking the substantive reality: A Massachusetts embarrassment would strongly increase the pressure Obama was already facing to retreat or slow down the "big bang" agenda he laid out a year ago.
QuoteObama, Dems consider pared-back health care bill
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama and congressional allies signaled Wednesday they may try to scale back his sweeping health care overhaul to keep parts of it alive in the wake of a stinging rebuke in the Senate race in Massachusetts.
A simpler, less ambitious bill emerged as an alternative only hours after the loss of the party's crucial 60th Senate seat forced the Democrats to slow their all-out drive to pass Obama's signature legislation despite fierce Republican opposition. The White House is still hoping the House can pass the Senate bill in a quick strike, but Democrats are now considering other options.
No decisions have been made, lawmakers said, but they laid out a new approach that could still include these provisions: limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to people with medical problems, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' policies, helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums and changing Medicare to encourage payment for quality care instead of sheer volume of services.
Obama said the election results wouldn't sour his interest in passing a health care bill.
"Now, I could have said, 'Well, we'll just do what's safe, we'll just take on those things that are completely non-controversial,'" Obama said in an interview with ABC News. "The problem is: the things that are non-controversial end up being the things that don't solve the problem."
Yet, the goal of trying to cover nearly all Americans would be put off further into the future.
Obama urged lawmakers not to try to jam a bill through, but scale the proposal down to what he called "those elements of the package that people agree on."
"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people," the president said. "We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help."
One potential Republican convert for health care legislation remained an enigma. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who has been in regular contact with Obama, roundly criticized the Democrats' hard push to pass their bill. But she would not rule out voting for something in the end.
Asked if the Democratic bills are dead, Snowe responded: "I never say anything is dead, but clearly I think they have to revisit the entire issue."
Some Democrats weren't ready for that, despite the president's new words.
One option, still alive and stirring strong emotions, called for the House to quickly pass the Senate version of the broader bill — simply accepting it and therefore bypassing the Senate problem created by the loss of the Massachusetts seat to Republican Scott Brown. But that appeared to be losing favor.
"That's a bitter pill for the House to swallow," said the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois.
"Full speed ahead is off the table," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, a moderate Democrat from North Dakota. "We are still very much in the exercise of drawing meaning from the public disquiet."
Nevertheless, the quick approach remained on the table, despite some House members' deep misgivings. In fact, administration officials were working behind the scenes on that idea, which would be the fastest and cleanest route to getting a bill to Obama, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe private talks.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders were gauging support for the idea among liberals and moderates. The initial reaction was not encouraging.
"If you ran that Senate bill right now on the House floor, I'll bet you would not get 100 votes for it," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.
It takes 218 votes to pass legislation. A majority of House Democrats oppose a tax on high-cost insurance plans in the Senate bill that unions see as a direct hit on their members. Stupak and other abortion opponents, backed by Catholic bishops, say the Senate bill falls short in restricting taxpayer dollars for abortion.
A week ago, House and Senate Democrats were working out the differences in their respective bills, and a quick resolution seemed likely. But feuding broke out after Brown's upset victory secured the seat held by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for the GOP.
Some Democratic senators suggested it was up to the House to save the day by passing the Senate bill.
"The Senate has passed the health care bill. The House has to make a decision how they want to proceed," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of the leadership.
Republicans said that would make their day.
Trying to push the Senate bill through would be a desperate ploy seen as such by voters, said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's 2008 presidential rival. "If they try to jam it through the House, they'll pay a very heavy price."
As the day wore on, those urging moderation seemed to be winning the argument.
"We're not going to rush into anything," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We will wait until the new senator arrives."
Many Democrats are wary of starting over with the goal of drafting a bill that reaches for the political middle. They doubt they'll get any cooperation from Republicans.
"You cannot dance with someone if they are not willing to dance with you," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ. He called GOP complaints that the Democrats wrote a partisan bill "pretty lame, when they have made a political calculation that their path to victory is to have the president fail."
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said a more modest approach would be a "reasonable alternative" that could appeal to the public even if Republicans still oppose it.
"Given the public concern, I think that we ought to focus on that which...the public can support and will be positive in terms of making health care more affordable and obtainable," he said.
Instead of one big bill, health care overhaul could be broken into chunks and passed over time.
"Medicare wasn't done in one fell swoop," said House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. "You lay a foundation and you get this thing done over time."
Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Jim Abrams, Alan Fram, Gerry Bodlander and Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.
Quote
At the Capitol, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., declared, "If there's anybody in this building that doesn't tell you they are more worried about elections today, you should absolutely slap them."
Indeed, there was a grim sense among Democrats that if the GOP could win in a traditionally deeply liberal state, Massachusetts, it could probably win anywhere.
Said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.: "Every state is now in play."
Ya think?
Okay, so they aren't the brightest bulbs in the box, but at least they have a decent sense for when to take a threat seriously.
Hardly. They're still trying to push for a government takeover of the greatest private health care system in the world.
The bums shall be washed out in a tidal wave surpassing that of even Aceh in 2004. :showoff:
Fate, have you ever considered toning it down a notch?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2010, 12:48:36 AM
Fate, have you ever considered toning it down a notch?
I really don't get why it amuses him. :unsure:
Anyways the real reason this is big news is that the Dems are gutless. Unlike the Republicans they have no party discipline and are a loose coalition rather than a real organized political party. Forget about winning elections, until they fix that problem they won't be able to do anything.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2010, 02:28:05 AM
Anyways the real reason this is big news is that the Dems are gutless. Unlike the Republicans they have no party discipline and are a loose coalition rather than a real organized political party. Forget about winning elections, until they fix that problem they won't be able to do anything.
Considering they have the President, the Congress and the kind of majority in the Senate that the Republicans have not had since 1920s, your bar for "winning elections" must be set particularly high.
And speaking of having much in common, the various coalitions in the Dems have about as much in common with each other, as Jewish NY necons with rural Alabama religious fundies.
I agree they are gutless, though.
Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 02:34:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2010, 02:28:05 AM
Anyways the real reason this is big news is that the Dems are gutless. Unlike the Republicans they have no party discipline and are a loose coalition rather than a real organized political party. Forget about winning elections, until they fix that problem they won't be able to do anything.
Considering they have the President, the Congress and the kind of majority in the Senate that the Republicans have not had since 1920s, your bar for "winning elections" must be set particularly high.
And speaking of having much in common, the various coalitions in the Dems have about as much in common with each other, as Jewish NY necons with rural Alabama religious fundies.
I agree they are gutless, though.
What I meant was that winning elections doesn't seem to matter to them. Even with the biggest senate majority in 30 years they couldn't get much of anything done. In contrast Bush got Department of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, Medicare expansion, and the Iraq Surge passed
We are a center right country. Of course leftist radicals aren't going to get anything substantial done. The Founders set up the Senate to operate under strict supermajorities on every issue for good reason.
Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 02:34:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2010, 02:28:05 AM
Anyways the real reason this is big news is that the Dems are gutless. Unlike the Republicans they have no party discipline and are a loose coalition rather than a real organized political party. Forget about winning elections, until they fix that problem they won't be able to do anything.
Considering they have the President, the Congress and the kind of majority in the Senate that the Republicans have not had since 1920s, your bar for "winning elections" must be set particularly high.
And speaking of having much in common, the various coalitions in the Dems have about as much in common with each other, as Jewish NY necons with rural Alabama religious fundies.
I agree they are gutless, though.
But that's the point. Democrats have a decisive majority in theory, but not in practice, since they can't rely on that majority holding together on anything even remotely controversial. What winds up happening is that they have all the responsibility and not much of the power.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2010, 02:37:46 AM
What I meant was that winning elections doesn't seem to matter to them. Even with a the biggest senate majority in 30 years they couldn't get much of anything done. In contrast Bush got Department of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, Medicare expansion, and the Iraq Surge passed
The problem is Democratic leadership. It takes a lot more leadership to herd cats than to herd sheep. Agree, though, that Bush accomplished little that was controversial via legislation - his "leadership" was to pretend the Constitution didn't exist and issue Executive Orders as fiats to accomplish the controversial.
Anger over the current Health care bill was one of the leading, or lead issue, for many Mass voters according to this poll. From focus groups I've seen, which have included mainly Dems, that would appear to be true, plus that people are very angry at how govt has been running, spending, not listening, deficits.
Quote
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/first_look_at_massachusetts_election_night_poll_data
First Look At Massachusetts Election Night Poll Data
Health Care Top Issue for Massachusetts Voters
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!
Rasmussen Reports has conducted an Election Night survey of 1,000 voters in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate. Data will be released on this page throughout the evening.
Polls closed in Massachusetts at 8:00 p.m. Eastern in the race between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown.
Health care has been a huge issue in this election. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Brown voters say it was the most important issue in determining their vote. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Coakley voters say health care was the top issue:
· 78% of Brown voters Strongly Oppose the health care legislation before Congress.
· 52% of Coakley supporters Strongly Favor the health care plan. Another 41% Somewhat Favor the legislation.
· 61% of Brown voters say deficit reduction is more important than health care reform.
· 46% of Coakley voters say health care legislation more important than deficit reduction.
· 86% of Coakley voters say it's better to pass the bill before Congress rather than nothing at all.
· 88% of Brown voters say it's better to pass nothing at all.
Results include:
* Brown leads among middle-income voters ($40,000 to $100,000).
* Coakley leads among those at upper and lower end of income range.
* Brown leads by 13% among political moderates.
* Among those who decided how they would vote in the past few days, Coakley has a slight edge, 47% to 41%.
* Coakley also has a big advantage among those who made up their mind more than a month ago.
* Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters for Brown said they were voting for him rather than against Coakley.
* Sixty-six percent (66%) of Coakley voters said they were voting for her rather than against Brown.
* 22% of Democrats voted for Brown. That is generally consistent with pre-election polling.
More data will be released soon.
Two weeks ago today, Rasmussen Reports released the first poll to show Brown pulling within single digits.
One week ago, Rasmussen Reports showed the race to be a toss-up. Brown was up by two among those most likely to vote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2010, 11:37:26 PM
Activate the porkalizer. :bleeding:
That wasn't a very nice thing to call Barbara. :mad:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 21, 2010, 12:48:36 AM
Fate, have you ever considered toning it down a notch?
Fate Rule.
The weird thing about the "Massachusetts voters angry about health care reform" story line is that Massachusetts already has universal coverage and in many ways was the model for the national bill.
Another thing that struck me is (AFAIK) the Massachusetts law doesn't include a public option. If it wasn't an issue then, why did it suddenly become such an all-consuming issue now?
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 08:19:38 AM
Anger over the current Health care bill was one of the leading, or lead issue, for many Mass voters according to this poll. From focus groups I've seen, which have included mainly Dems, that would appear to be true, plus that people are very angry at how govt has been running, spending, not listening, deficits.
So in other words, if the Democrats concentrate on jobs like they want, they'll just stoke more anger about the deficit. If they slash spending, they lengthen the recession.
Whee!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 09:00:32 AM
The weird thing about the "Massachusetts voters angry about health care reform" story line is that Massachusetts already has universal coverage and in many ways was the model for the national bill.
Another thing that struck me is (AFAIK) the Massachusetts law doesn't include a public option. If it wasn't an issue then, why did it suddenly become such an all-consuming issue now?
Arguments I've heard focus on that the Mass plan isn't the big plan like the Federal bill, and one problem with the Mass plan is it costs more than expected, partly because not enough was done to address costs. Similar to the problems the Fed plan will face. Also that the state already has a plan so people don't want to pay into a massive Federal plan on top of the state plan. They'd rather see states set up plans that works for each state instead of a one size fits all Federal approach. And probably the biggest issue is how the legislation was done for the Federal bill, aside from dissatisfaction with the bill itself, which has people pretty angry. Even so, nearly half support the Federal bill but a slight majority don't, from the polls I've seen.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 21, 2010, 09:27:52 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 08:19:38 AM
Anger over the current Health care bill was one of the leading, or lead issue, for many Mass voters according to this poll. From focus groups I've seen, which have included mainly Dems, that would appear to be true, plus that people are very angry at how govt has been running, spending, not listening, deficits.
So in other words, if the Democrats concentrate on jobs like they want, they'll just stoke more anger about the deficit. If they slash spending, they lengthen the recession.
Whee!
Apparently lots of people don't feel that the stimulus plans have focused on jobs, and that has cause muched anger. Again, this is a Democrat party state bastion and people here are angry. I can't imagine how it is in Republican states.
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 09:42:09 AM
Apparently lots of people don't feel that the stimulus plans have focused on jobs, and that has cause muched anger. Again, this is a Democrat party state bastion and people here are angry. I can't imagine how it is in Republican states.
I get that. I'm just not sure what the Democrats and do. What did they think the Stimulus money did, fire the money into the sun?
Quote from: Faeelin on January 21, 2010, 09:50:19 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 09:42:09 AM
Apparently lots of people don't feel that the stimulus plans have focused on jobs, and that has cause muched anger. Again, this is a Democrat party state bastion and people here are angry. I can't imagine how it is in Republican states.
I get that. I'm just not sure what the Democrats and do. What did they think the Stimulus money did, fire the money into the sun?
Well, there have been criticisms about some parts of the stimulus bills for a while, those concerns aren't anything new.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 21, 2010, 09:50:19 AM
I get that. I'm just not sure what the Democrats and do. What did they think the Stimulus money did, fire the money into the sun?
Bit of gibberish at the start there that I don't get, but the feeling seems to be that the stimulus bill fired the money into multi-million-dollar executive bonuses.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2010, 07:14:59 AM
The problem is Democratic leadership. It takes a lot more leadership to herd cats than to herd sheep.
This is true. There is something very unique to the American system about the importance of the individual politician.
QuoteAgree, though, that Bush accomplished little that was controversial via legislation - his "leadership" was to pretend the Constitution didn't exist and issue Executive Orders as fiats to accomplish the controversial.
Let's not stop at Bush. The last major domestic piece of legislation was probably welfare reform. Prior to that Reagan's tax cuts or the Clean Air Act. At that rate you should solve paying for Social Security some time next century :)
QuoteAnother thing that struck me is (AFAIK) the Massachusetts law doesn't include a public option. If it wasn't an issue then, why did it suddenly become such an all-consuming issue now?
It wasn't an issue in the primaries or in the general election. Which is perhaps why it became a big issue now. Everything else had been talked about.
QuoteArguments I've heard focus on that the Mass plan isn't the big plan like the Federal bill, and one problem with the Mass plan is it costs more than expected, partly because not enough was done to address costs. Similar to the problems the Fed plan will face.
The MA plan is very similar to the Senate bill. The Senate bill also contained a fair few cost-containment measures that I think would have worked very well (for Medicare as well).
QuoteApparently lots of people don't feel that the stimulus plans have focused on jobs, and that has cause muched anger.
Well it depends what you mean really. It's plugged a lot of holes in state budgets - now if that hadn't have happened then I think it's impossible to imagine the sort of budget cuts states would have needed without job losses. But another part of the stimulus was a tax cut which won't create jobs - certainly not in the short term or as well as spending the money - but that was politically necessary to get those few Republican votes, though it's a shame.
QuoteBit of gibberish at the start there that I don't get, but the feeling seems to be that the stimulus bill fired the money into multi-million-dollar executive bonuses.
Surely you mean TARP and the bailout?
There be blood in the water, mateys. The guns have come out for Harry Reid around here, and every Republican with any name recognition is jumping in the race to see who gets to take him on. Ads are already running full force. Buckle up.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 21, 2010, 03:50:04 PM
There be blood in the water, mateys. The guns have come out for Harry Reid around here, and every Republican with any name recognition is jumping in the race to see who gets to take him on. Ads are already running full force. Buckle up.
If you could cast your vote against Reid, I'd appreciate it. :cool:
Incidentally the more I read and see of Brown (I sort-of ignored this on my back-burner for a while) the more I like him. I think he's got real star quality. He's no Huck but he's very, very good.
Watching the movie "Casino" gave me a newfound respect for Reid. It takes balls to take on the mafia, especially when faced with constant death threats.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2010, 03:42:08 PM
Surely you mean TARP and the bailout?
No, because most people don't draw those kinds of distinctions. They just see the Federal government spending hundreds of billions, and the rescued bank execs awarding themselves tens of billions in bonuses, and get this idea that the bonuses are coming from the government expenditures. TARP, stimulus, and bailout programs are all rolled into one big "way too much money is being given away to everyone but me" idea.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 21, 2010, 03:50:04 PM
There be blood in the water, mateys. The guns have come out for Harry Reid around here, and every Republican with any name recognition is jumping in the race to see who gets to take him on. Ads are already running full force. Buckle up.
Defeating Reid would be a real mistake on the part of the Republicans! :lol:
What's funny that Massachussets is the state with a health care system already much like the one proposed by the democrat bill. I guess the fuckers who live there simply don't want the same they already have for the rest of the county. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 04:45:47 PM
What's funny that Massachussets is the state with a health care system already much like the one proposed by the democrat bill. I guess the fuckers who live there simply don't want to pay for the same system they already have for the rest of the county. :lol:
Correct, as corrected :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2010, 04:37:00 PM
Defeating Reid would be a real mistake on the part of the Republicans! :lol:
It would be a great publicity coup to be able to knock off the Majority Leader, and I know I would get a kick out of it.
But otherwise yeah, you're right.
Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2010, 04:16:52 PM
Watching the movie "Casino" gave me a newfound respect for Reid. It takes balls to take on the mafia, especially when faced with constant death threats.
I can't help but respect him for his life story, having grown up in some of the worst possible conditions to rise to Senate Majority Leader.
Politically, however, I really can't say I respect him much.
In case anyone was unaware, one way they could avoid a filibuster on health care is for the House to accept the Senate version (already passed there). But Pelosi just said on ABC that she doesn't have the votes in the House to vote in the Senate version.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
In case anyone was unaware, one way they could avoid a filibuster on health care is for the House to accept the Senate version (already passed there). But Pelosi just said on ABC that she doesn't have the votes in the House to vote in the Senate version.
That is really disappointing. Unless some miracle can happen now, it seems as though health care is dead at least until 2013.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
In case anyone was unaware, one way they could avoid a filibuster on health care is for the House to accept the Senate version (already passed there). But Pelosi just said on ABC that she doesn't have the votes in the House to vote in the Senate version.
That is really disappointing. Unless some miracle can happen now, it seems as though health care is dead at least until 2013.
I would hope 2022 at the very least. The seeds of the 2010 and 2012 Boehner Revolution have been sown.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
That is really disappointing. Unless some miracle can happen now, it seems as though health care is dead at least until 2013.
I can only hope that Republicans win a supermajority, and use that power to bring in proper socialized medicine.
Quote from: Neil on January 21, 2010, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
That is really disappointing. Unless some miracle can happen now, it seems as though health care is dead at least until 2013.
I can only hope that Republicans win a supermajority, and use that power to bring in proper socialized medicine.
Considering how weak the democrats were in Bush's first term, I think we got a glimpse of what a republican supermajority would look like. It doesn't include socialized medicine, but does have some nice programs to aid pharmaceuticals.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:43:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 21, 2010, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
That is really disappointing. Unless some miracle can happen now, it seems as though health care is dead at least until 2013.
I can only hope that Republicans win a supermajority, and use that power to bring in proper socialized medicine.
Considering how weak the democrats were in Bush's first term, I think we got a glimpse of what a republican supermajority would look like. It doesn't include socialized medicine, but does have some nice programs to aid pharmaceuticals.
I think the Repubs did try for some health care changes, small changes at some reform. I don't remember it but read or saw it on the news recently. Along with attempting Social Security reform, which also will be one of the next big things to hit us upside the head.
Guys, Dem Coakley was 20-30 points up at one point. She won the Dem primaries pretty easily. Then lost her lead big time. I don't just blame Coakley though. The national scene issues played into this election quite heavily.
I don't see this Mass election as some affirmation of the Repubs. Repubs need to realize that too. People seem to be angry at business as usual and because the Dems are in big control now, running things with what is seen as a heavy hand, with all the political, budgetary turmoil going on, the Dems take the big hit. People wanted someone different, not the same old Dem, as people voiced annoyance at local politics and attach that to national Dem politics. Doesn't mean liking the Repubs but the Repubs are the only other real choice and Brown is seen as a very likeable choice.
Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 04:45:47 PM
What's funny that Massachussets is the state with a health care system already much like the one proposed by the democrat bill. I guess the fuckers who live there simply don't want the same they already have for the rest of the county. :lol:
And the people of Massachussets dislike Romneycare and don't want to see it replicated elsewhere. Nor do they want to pay higher taxes to export their failed system.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:43:17 PM
Considering how weak the democrats were in Bush's first term, I think we got a glimpse of what a republican supermajority would look like. It doesn't include socialized medicine, but does have some nice programs to aid pharmaceuticals.
Only Nixon can go to China.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
In case anyone was unaware, one way they could avoid a filibuster on health care is for the House to accept the Senate version (already passed there). But Pelosi just said on ABC that she doesn't have the votes in the House to vote in the Senate version.
The other way is to simply fund what can be funded from the common elements of the two bills (ie make it purely a budget reconciliation) and that also cannot be filibustered.
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 09:13:13 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:43:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 21, 2010, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
That is really disappointing. Unless some miracle can happen now, it seems as though health care is dead at least until 2013.
I can only hope that Republicans win a supermajority, and use that power to bring in proper socialized medicine.
Considering how weak the democrats were in Bush's first term, I think we got a glimpse of what a republican supermajority would look like. It doesn't include socialized medicine, but does have some nice programs to aid pharmaceuticals.
I think the Repubs did try for some health care changes, small changes at some reform. I don't remember it but read or saw it on the news recently. Along with attempting Social Security reform, which also will be one of the next big things to hit us upside the head.
They did create Health Savings Accounts, which currently enroll about 6 million people. A far superior idea to the retarded Obamacare proposals. Create tax credits for HSAs, allow interstate commerce for health insurance, and add tort reform and you would end up with a market-based system that would significantly reduce health care costs. unlike Obamacare that reduced health care while simultaneuously increasing costs.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 21, 2010, 09:22:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 04:45:47 PM
What's funny that Massachussets is the state with a health care system already much like the one proposed by the democrat bill. I guess the fuckers who live there simply don't want the same they already have for the rest of the county. :lol:
And the people of Massachussets dislike Romneycare and don't want to see it replicated elsewhere. Nor do they want to pay higher taxes to export their failed system.
Romney care is broken. We can't afford it. Even Romney admitted that it didn't have enough cost controls, or ways to keep costs down. I thought it was a good idea to try and insure everyone, but it needs some fixing, if fixing is possible.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
In case anyone was unaware, one way they could avoid a filibuster on health care is for the House to accept the Senate version (already passed there). But Pelosi just said on ABC that she doesn't have the votes in the House to vote in the Senate version.
That is really disappointing. Unless some miracle can happen now, it seems as though health care is dead at least until 2013.
These guys in Congress can pass something. There's a lot that they can agree on, but if they try to do too much again they're going to have trouble.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 21, 2010, 09:22:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 04:45:47 PM
What's funny that Massachussets is the state with a health care system already much like the one proposed by the democrat bill. I guess the fuckers who live there simply don't want the same they already have for the rest of the county. :lol:
And the people of Massachussets dislike Romneycare and don't want to see it replicated elsewhere. Nor do they want to pay higher taxes to export their failed system.
And the people of Massachusetts also like their health care reform and want to see it implemented nationally.
As always, "the people of Massachusetts" hold a number of different opinions, and only bumper-sticker-mentality types think differently.
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 09:28:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
In case anyone was unaware, one way they could avoid a filibuster on health care is for the House to accept the Senate version (already passed there). But Pelosi just said on ABC that she doesn't have the votes in the House to vote in the Senate version.
That is really disappointing. Unless some miracle can happen now, it seems as though health care is dead at least until 2013.
These guys in Congress can pass something. There's a lot that they can agree on, but if they try to do too much again they're going to have trouble.
The problem is that the health care bill is interconnected so that just passing a part of it may be a disaster. If you put the idea "Insurance companies can't discriminate against pre-existing conditions" you might have strong public support, even though that would wreck private insurance without an individual mandate.
Quote from: Neil on January 21, 2010, 09:22:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2010, 08:43:17 PM
Considering how weak the democrats were in Bush's first term, I think we got a glimpse of what a republican supermajority would look like. It doesn't include socialized medicine, but does have some nice programs to aid pharmaceuticals.
Only Nixon can go to China.
That has merit. Bush certainly wasn't Nixon though.
Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2010, 04:45:47 PM
What's funny that Massachussets is the state with a health care system already much like the one proposed by the democrat bill. I guess the fuckers who live there simply don't want the same they already have for the rest of the county. :lol:
Another thing, big thing. People are very angry over how this Federal bill was done, all the buy offs to politcians and states to pass it, buy offs to big business and big unions, putting those costs elsewhere like on other taxpayers. Senator Nelson of Nebraska who got a real sweetheart deal fo his state is getting booed by his constituents on the streets, and his ratings have dropped. Even those getting the sweet deal know it stinks. So, of course all this plus more that went on to nudge this pig towards the finish line has a lot of angry people. And we get a Repub in Massachusetts, as one result. Plus other issues people are just as angry over, as even many Democrats are here. I can only imagine the fear Dems feel in more centrist type states. If a Repub can win in Mass, then damn, Repubs can win anywhere right now.
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 09:27:05 PM
Romney care is broken. We can't afford it. Even Romney admitted that it didn't have enough cost controls, or ways to keep costs down. I thought it was a good idea to try and insure everyone, but it needs some fixing, if fixing is possible.
Like any system in which public moneys subsidize private inefficiencies, the Massachusetts system allows for some pretty egregious cost increases. The problem with health cares costs is that the consumer has no one on his side, and faces a whole host of organizations primed to gouge to the max. In countries with single payer, or a large government role, the government steps in to negotiate a price cap, but where the government isn't involved, or is involved incompetently (as in Medicare/Medicaid), no such pressure on the government exists.
It is not a problem that market forces can solve, no matter how much we free marketeers would love to think they could.
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 09:36:12 PM
If a Repub can win in Mass, then damn, Repubs can win anywhere right now.
And the ironic thing is that the Republican role right now, the role for which they are being rewarded, is the role of pure pig-headed obstructionism, because the public is more angry at the noise from the snow shovels two feet away from them than at noise from the avalanche 30 feet away. The health care "reform" bill sucks, but the status quo sucks as well.
In my more depressed moments, I realize that the American people get exactly the politicians they deserve.
Quote from: grumbler on January 21, 2010, 09:46:48 PM
Quote from: KRonn on January 21, 2010, 09:36:12 PM
If a Repub can win in Mass, then damn, Repubs can win anywhere right now.
And the ironic thing is that the Republican role right now, the role for which they are being rewarded, is the role of pure pig-headed obstructionism, because the public is more angry at the noise from the snow shovels two feet away from them than at noise from the avalanche 30 feet away. The health care "reform" bill sucks, but the status quo sucks as well.
In my more depressed moments, I realize that the American people get exactly the politicians they deserve.
Nonsense, the Democrats tried to ram it through in secret without ever even talking to the GOP. There was nothing even remotely worthwhile in either the House or the Senate bill. Either one would've made the system far more dysfunctional than it already was. "pig-headed obstructionism" a bill you were not allowed to even see was the only rational response.
The Dems even pissed off olympia Snowe, that was quite a feat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
In case anyone was unaware, one way they could avoid a filibuster on health care is for the House to accept the Senate version (already passed there). But Pelosi just said on ABC that she doesn't have the votes in the House to vote in the Senate version.
No, due to Article 7 of the Constitution "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Since the Senate bill included taxes the House adopting it would've been unconstitutional since the bill didn't originate in the House.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 21, 2010, 10:46:00 PM
No, due to Article 7 of the Constitution "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Since the Senate bill included taxes the House adopting it would've been unconstitutional since the bill didn't originate in the House.
The point is interesting and moot both at the same time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2010, 10:52:55 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 21, 2010, 10:46:00 PM
No, due to Article 7 of the Constitution "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." Since the Senate bill included taxes the House adopting it would've been unconstitutional since the bill didn't originate in the House.
The point is interesting and moot both at the same time.
I was actually hoping it would go to the USSC. i love a good Constitutional law lesson.
Hey, I thought this belonged here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlPE1lV_5Y&feature=player_embedded
You guys have some funny ads :P
Quote from: viper37 on January 22, 2010, 04:19:20 PM
Hey, I thought this belonged here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlPE1lV_5Y&feature=player_embedded
You guys have some funny ads :P
Loved it! Thanks for posting it.
Quote from: viper37 on January 22, 2010, 04:19:20 PM
Hey, I thought this belonged here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlPE1lV_5Y&feature=player_embedded
You guys have some funny ads :P
That's not an ad. :P That was put together by the guy that did that shoes video a couple years back.
QuoteObama concedes health overhaul hit 'buzz saw'
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, two days after signaling retreat on a massive health care overhaul, discounted the small-bore approach Friday and pledged to press for ambitious changes despite running into a "bit of a buzz saw" of opposition.
Even as the president sought to bring the public and nervous Democrats back on board, a leading member of his party suggested Congress slow it down on health care, a sign of eroding political will in the wake of Tuesday's Republican election upset in Massachusetts.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who ushered the overhaul legislation through the Senate's health committee last year after the death of his friend, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, said Obama and lawmakers could "maybe take a breather for a month, six weeks."
"Maybe we do need to take this time. Look, it didn't work, this process," Dodd said, adding that Obama's leadership was needed to get things back on track.
The president didn't offer a specific prescription for moving forward Friday, but he did deliver a full-throated defense of his signature domestic issue, which threatens to stall in Congress after Massachusetts voters denied Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate majority. Lawmakers ended the week having charted no clear path, though aides promised to work through the weekend to look for a compromise, possibly one that could allow the Senate to act with a simple majority instead of the 60-vote supermajority Democrats now lack.
Just a week ago the health legislation had appeared on the cusp of passage after Obama threw himself into marathon negotiations with congressional leaders to work out differences between the House and Senate bills.
"There are things that have to get done. This is our best chance to do it. We can't keep on putting this off," Obama said Friday at a town hall meeting in Elyria, Ohio, warning listeners that spiraling medical costs threaten to bankrupt them and the country unless Congress acts.
"I am not going to walk away just because it's hard," the president said. He acknowledged the ugliness of the legislative process, saying that with lawmakers cutting deals to secure votes "it starts looking like just this monstrosity. And it makes people fearful."
In his remarks, Obama seemed to pull back from a suggestion he made on Wednesday that lawmakers unite behind the elements of the legislation everyone can agree on. Obama said that approach presented problems because some of the popular ideas, like new requirements on insurance companies, couldn't be done without getting many more people insured.
"A lot of these insurance reforms are connected to some other things we have to do to make sure that everybody has some access to coverage," he said. For example, insurers wouldn't be able to end a practice like denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions unless more people were covered. Otherwise people could wait until they got sick to buy insurance, and premiums could skyrocket.
Obama's earlier comments in an ABC News interview had muddied the waters for Democratic leaders who were scrambling to unite the rank and file behind the quickest path forward, which was viewed as the White House's preferred option — for the House to pass the Senate's health care bill unchanged, obviating the need for further Senate action. By Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was ruling that out, saying House Democrats had too many problems with the Senate's version to pass it without changes. If Obama still wants a comprehensive reform bill his options are limited, one of them being for the House to approve the Senate's bill and for both chambers to agree to changes to it, possibly limited to budget-related items that under complex Senate rules require just a simple majority.
Obama has used immense political capital to advance the health care overhaul and remake a system that has frustrated past administrations, most recently Democrat Bill Clinton in 1994. Whether he can succeed where others have failed is now anything but clear, and Obama seemed to acknowledge as much.
"Here's the good news. We've gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we had a little bit of a buzz saw this week," the president said.
"I understand that, why after the Massachusetts election people in Washington were all in a tizzy, trying to figure out what this means for health reform, Republicans and Democrats, what does it mean for Obama, is he weakened, is he, oh, how's he going to survive this — that's what they do," Obama said. "But I want you to understand, this is not about me. This is about you."
It was Kennedy's longtime Senate seat that changed party hands on Tuesday with the victory of Republican Scott Brown, a bitter irony for Democrats since universal health coverage had been Kennedy's lifelong goal, and Brown has pledged to be the GOP's decisive 41st vote against overhaul legislation.
Notwithstanding the comments Friday from Dodd, who is not seeking re-election this year, Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have both insisted the health care legislation will go forward, and Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Friday that hasn't changed.
Nate Silver's new senate projections, and boy are they brutal for the Democrats.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/senate-rankings-post-masspocalypse.html
Can you say Majority Leader Brown?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2010, 04:17:11 AM
Nate Silver's new senate projections, and boy are they brutal for the Democrats.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/senate-rankings-post-masspocalypse.html
They don't really look all that brutal, unless not having a 60+ majority is the new brutal.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 23, 2010, 05:00:25 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2010, 04:17:11 AM
Nate Silver's new senate projections, and boy are they brutal for the Democrats.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/senate-rankings-post-masspocalypse.html
They don't really look all that brutal, unless not having a 60+ majority is the new brutal.
You forget Timmay is a moron.
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 04:46:33 AM
Can you say Majority Leader Brown?
He'd do well to avoid that, look what happened to Daschle.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 23, 2010, 06:18:07 AM
Quote from: Fate on January 23, 2010, 04:46:33 AM
Can you say Majority Leader Brown?
He'd do well to avoid that, look what happened to Daschle.
But I bet he'd be smashing on
Dancing With The Stars.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 23, 2010, 05:00:25 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2010, 04:17:11 AM
Nate Silver's new senate projections, and boy are they brutal for the Democrats.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/senate-rankings-post-masspocalypse.html
They don't really look all that brutal, unless not having a 60+ majority is the new brutal.
Since when is losing 6-8 seats in the senate in one election not brutal?
Since they say the avg would be 54 and they are at 59 now that last i looked is 5 seats...thank god you aren't teaching math over there in Korea :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2010, 08:05:25 AM
Since when is losing 6-8 seats in the senate in one election not brutal?
It's brutal but it doesn't necessarily signify much. Around half of post-war mid-term elections has seen the President's party lose 5+ Senators.
But I think this mid-term looks more like 1982 than 1994.
Quote from: katmai on January 23, 2010, 08:06:43 AM
Since they say the avg would be 54 and they are at 59 now that last i looked is 5 seats...thank god you aren't teaching math over there in Korea :P
Looking at his analysis of individual seats I think a loss of 6-8 seats is likely.
Speaking of Brown. :lol:
http://gawker.com/5454403/republican-saviors-wife-starred-in-half+naked-music-video-about-handjobs
Quote from: 538
This is a very heavy lift for Harry Reid -- if he's the candidate, we have him at less than a 20 percent chance of holding onto his seat. There's plenty of polling in this race and while there are a few incumbents who have come back from the sort of hole he finds himself in, it's awfully rare. Although PPP's polling showed that Shelly Berkley's numbers weren't any better than Reid's, the algorithm begs to differ: she's an experienced office-holder, and it's hard to do worse than an approval rating of about 40 percent. A long-shot candidacy by Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman could actually make Dems the favorites here.
Poor Harry is gonna get Daschled by the looks of it unless something big happens in the next few months. The comment about Oscar Goodman is interesting, and it should be noted that Oscar is also a favorite to unseat the Governor. The talk about him has been primarily in that regard. But if Harry decides to retire (or if he wakes up with a horse head or simply loses the primary), I'd call Goodman the favorite. He'd have to rejoin the Democrat Party though. He's an independent atm, and the buzz was that he might join the GOP to primary out the Governor. (Because Harry Reid's son is the presumptive Dem nominee). Although there are two other major GOP names about to do that anyway.
Obviously, he's not a cookie-cutter Dem.
Goldman isn't a cookie cutter anything :lol:
I think it's clear Reid's in a difficult spot but I'd be very wary if I were the Republicans. It's dangerous to presume anything at this stage and even more dangerous to underestimate a man who's been Senator for a swing state for over 20 years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2010, 04:33:02 PM
I think it's clear Reid's in a difficult spot but I'd be very wary if I were the Republicans. It's dangerous to presume anything at this stage and even more dangerous to underestimate a man who's been Senator for a swing state for over 20 years.
No, Reid is politically dead. He's already being urged to retire by more and more Democratic political activists who are busy releasing polls showing that virtually any other Dem would do better than Reid. Reid's negatives are well above 50 percent, there is virtually no chance of coming back from that death spiral.
Reid used to be able to win reelection in a centrist state by being a centrist. As Majority Leader he hasn't had that luxury, hence he's toast. Unless the GOP candidate is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl he'll win.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 06:20:24 PM
No, Reid is politically dead. He's already being urged to retire by more and more Democratic political activists who are busy releasing polls showing that virtually any other Dem would do better than Reid. Reid's negatives are well above 50 percent, there is virtually no chance of coming back from that death spiral.
Reid used to be able to win reelection in a centrist state by being a centrist. As Majority Leader he hasn't had that luxury, hence he's toast. Unless the GOP candidate is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl he'll win.
This may all be true, but I find it ironic that in a thread about a Democrat losing an unloseable election - at least to some extent due to complacency - that you're arguing for the same complacency in an unloseable election for your side. You have nothing to lose by being wary and cautious about the guy or by thinking he could still, wily old fox that he is, still pull it off. Also you're in danger of turning him into the underdog - he may well be the underdog - but such a pose is a gift for any half-skilled jobbing politician.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 26, 2010, 06:37:03 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 06:20:24 PM
No, Reid is politically dead. He's already being urged to retire by more and more Democratic political activists who are busy releasing polls showing that virtually any other Dem would do better than Reid. Reid's negatives are well above 50 percent, there is virtually no chance of coming back from that death spiral.
Reid used to be able to win reelection in a centrist state by being a centrist. As Majority Leader he hasn't had that luxury, hence he's toast. Unless the GOP candidate is caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl he'll win.
This may all be true, but I find it ironic that in a thread about a Democrat losing an unloseable election - at least to some extent due to complacency - that you're arguing for the same complacency in an unloseable election for your side. You have nothing to lose by being wary and cautious about the guy or by thinking he could still, wily old fox that he is, still pull it off. Also you're in danger of turning him into the underdog - he may well be the underdog - but such a pose is a gift for any half-skilled jobbing politician.
The problem is that Reid isn't a particularly good politician in most aspects. He tends to make stupid comments that bite him in the arse, such as calling Obama "light-skinned without a negro accent", or denouncing Greenspan as a "political hack", declaring on the floor of the Senate that the war in Iraq is lost, etc. He lacks charisma and intelligence. He has only one skill he has been good at: leveraging his Senate seat and his large family of which virtually everyone is employed as a lobbyist to bring back massive amounts of pork. Unfortunately for Reid, those are considered liabilities in this environment.
Since when has bringing massive amounts of pork to your home state been a disadvantage? :yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2010, 06:59:11 PM
Since when has bringing massive amounts of pork to your home state been a disadvantage? :yeahright:
The political climate has changed. Pork has never been popular, except for a very narrow special interest that benefitted from it, but the broad majority, while not liking it, didn't really care about it one way or another since it didn't effect them. A hypermotivated small minority trumps a disinterested majority.
However, the economy, the massive deficits, and the massive amount of corruption so evident in the last year has created a poisonous atmosphere for such deals. Suddenly the formerly disinterested majority is hypermotivated. Senator Ben Nelson found out recently when he was chased out of a restaurant in his native Nebraska for accepting a Medicaid payoff for his vote. Most politicians haven't really caught on yet to the changing realities, which will probably result in a lot of "safe" incumbents losing their seats in November.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2010, 06:59:11 PM
Since when has bringing massive amounts of pork to your home state been a disadvantage? :yeahright:
The political climate has changed. Pork has never been popular, except for a very narrow special interest that benefitted from it, but the broad majority, while not liking it, didn't really care about it one way or another since it didn't effect them. A hypermotivated small minority trumps a disinterested majority.
However, the economy, the massive deficits, and the massive amount of corruption so evident in the last year has created a poisonous atmosphere for such deals. Suddenly the formerly disinterested majority is hypermotivated. Senator Ben Nelson found out recently when he was chased out of a restaurant in his native Nebraska for accepting a Medicaid payoff for his vote. Most politicians haven't really caught on yet to the changing realities, which will probably result in a lot of "safe" incumbents losing their seats in November.
Colour me: sceptical.
I'm with the shameless Apple whore. I can see Nelson being chased out of a restaurant by Tea Bagger Know Nothings, not by highly principled anti porkists.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 07:35:07 PM
I'm with the shameless Apple whore. I can see Nelson being chased out of a restaurant by Tea Bagger Know Nothings, not by highly principled anti porkists.
I have plenty of shame. :angry:
I'm with the shameful Apple whore. :homestar:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 07:37:49 PM
I'm with the shameful Apple whore. :homestar:
That's better.
...
Wait... :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 24, 2010, 02:50:21 AM
Speaking of Brown. :lol:
http://gawker.com/5454403/republican-saviors-wife-starred-in-half+naked-music-video-about-handjobs
This guy just keeps getting better and better.
Scott Brown for IMPERATOR.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 26, 2010, 07:35:07 PM
I'm with the shameless Apple whore. I can see Nelson being chased out of a restaurant by Tea Bagger Know Nothings, not by highly principled anti porkists.
Or likely a combination of all types. Principled anit-porkists, Tea Baggers who are well informed along with the know nothings, and average citizens who are tired, really tired, of the same old game in Washington. The game that Pres Obama claimed over and over again to change. But instead that game has become worse, by Congress and the Administration. Nelson is under a lot of heat over his dealings! Has lost popularity in his state in recent polling.
Quote from: Caliga on January 26, 2010, 07:42:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 24, 2010, 02:50:21 AM
Speaking of Brown. :lol:
http://gawker.com/5454403/republican-saviors-wife-starred-in-half+naked-music-video-about-handjobs
This guy just keeps getting better and better.
Scott Brown for IMPERATOR.
Lol, I see Brown's name as possible next Presidential candidate or what ever. Sheesh. Let's not elect Brown to be President, political game changer, or anything else. He's still a new guy, unproven.
Quote from: KRonn on January 27, 2010, 10:31:07 AM
Or likely a combination of all types. Principled anit-porkists<snip>
Then it would likely be a first in US history.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 25, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
Quote from: 538
This is a very heavy lift for Harry Reid -- if he's the candidate, we have him at less than a 20 percent chance of holding onto his seat. There's plenty of polling in this race and while there are a few incumbents who have come back from the sort of hole he finds himself in, it's awfully rare. Although PPP's polling showed that Shelly Berkley's numbers weren't any better than Reid's, the algorithm begs to differ: she's an experienced office-holder, and it's hard to do worse than an approval rating of about 40 percent. A long-shot candidacy by Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman could actually make Dems the favorites here.
Poor Harry is gonna get Daschled by the looks of it unless something big happens in the next few months. The comment about Oscar Goodman is interesting, and it should be noted that Oscar is also a favorite to unseat the Governor. The talk about him has been primarily in that regard. But if Harry decides to retire (or if he wakes up with a horse head or simply loses the primary), I'd call Goodman the favorite. He'd have to rejoin the Democrat Party though. He's an independent atm, and the buzz was that he might join the GOP to primary out the Governor. (Because Harry Reid's son is the presumptive Dem nominee). Although there are two other major GOP names about to do that anyway.
Obviously, he's not a cookie-cutter Dem.
And now, the Happiest Mayor in the USA has officially removed himself from the Governor's race. Hmmm...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2010, 10:43:03 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 27, 2010, 10:31:07 AM
Or likely a combination of all types. Principled anit-porkists<snip>
Then it would likely be a first in US history.
Yeah, we seem to complain about pork spending, but still expect to get some of it brought back to our states. But really, so often it gets done so badly that I'd hope people do seriously want some reforms in that process. With Nelson's pay off it was a biggie, giving his state freebies on Medicaid, paid for by the rest of us. That hit people upside the head, on top of what else similar had been going on.
Quote from: KRonn on January 27, 2010, 11:02:21 AM
Yeah, we seem to complain about pork spending, but still expect to get some of it brought back to our states. But really, so often it gets done so badly that I'd hope people do seriously want some reforms in that process. With Nelson's pay off it was a biggie, giving his state freebies on Medicaid, paid for by the rest of us. That hit people upside the head, on top of what else similar had been going on.
I was trying to be polite. I think it's bullshit. Good government anti pork types don't do public demonstrations. Some of the Tea Baggers harrassing Nelson may have made noise about the Medicare bribe for Nebraska as a means of broadening their appeal, much like the way Michael Moore professed undying devotion to the plight of American fighting men and women while protesting the Iraq war.
I think it's good that Nelson is getting lots of heat, from inside his state to outside of it, for that nasty deal he got. Governor Arnold of Cali blasted it, as have others. If a few tea baggers bring it up too, then fine. The process of legislation has become a real sore spot to so many people, whether we agree with the agendas of some of those people/groups or not.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 26, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 26, 2010, 06:59:11 PM
Since when has bringing massive amounts of pork to your home state been a disadvantage? :yeahright:
The political climate has changed. Pork has never been popular, except for a very narrow special interest that benefitted from it, but the broad majority, while not liking it, didn't really care about it one way or another since it didn't effect them. A hypermotivated small minority trumps a disinterested majority.
However, the economy, the massive deficits, and the massive amount of corruption so evident in the last year has created a poisonous atmosphere for such deals. Suddenly the formerly disinterested majority is hypermotivated. Senator Ben Nelson found out recently when he was chased out of a restaurant in his native Nebraska for accepting a Medicaid payoff for his vote. Most politicians haven't really caught on yet to the changing realities, which will probably result in a lot of "safe" incumbents losing their seats in November.
Everyone hates pork except for the pork that flows into their own district. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 27, 2010, 10:43:03 AM
Quote from: KRonn on January 27, 2010, 10:31:07 AM
Or likely a combination of all types. Principled anit-porkists<snip>
Then it would likely be a first in US history.
I don't actually see how a system like the US could lack pork. If you have a small legislative chamber, that requires a high number of votes and lack strong central parties/whipping then surely pork's pretty inevitable?
I've said before that I don't know what Americans want. Half the time they love the strong, principled leaders and politicians who are, more often than not, on the left or the right but are like signposts, moaning about the weathervane politicians of the moderate wings (rather than centrists) who cut deals, compromise, negotiate and wheel and deal - the other time they decry partisanship and the inability of Congress to make deals, or compromise, or negotiate. I think the former is comparatively more like a parliamentary system (and more like the House) with two diametrically opposed parties that generally have a coherent ideology, while the latter's always going to be corrupt but will retain more independent legislators and look a lot like the Senate.
It seems like Jim deMint and Ben Nelson are both what's worst in the Senate and what's best.
Pork is essential for the passage of legislation that enjoys less than majority support. Maybe we shouldn't be passing those bills.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 03:51:52 PM
Pork is essential for the passage of legislation that enjoys less than majority support. Maybe we shouldn't be passing those bills.
So, are you suggesting that the Congress do nothing other than pass the "Jesus is wonderful!" resolutions?
I love pork. I'd be annoyed if my congresscritter didn't bring home the bacon to the district.
:shutup:
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 03:54:41 PM
So, are you suggesting that the Congress do nothing other than pass the "Jesus is wonderful!" resolutions?
So, are you suggesting the only thing a majority of Congressmen are in favor of is Jesus is wonderful resolutions?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 03:59:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 03:54:41 PM
So, are you suggesting that the Congress do nothing other than pass the "Jesus is wonderful!" resolutions?
So, are you suggesting the only thing a majority of Congressmen are in favor of is Jesus is wonderful resolutions?
No, of course not. I'm sure Democrats can flip some Republicans on "Terrorism is bad!" and "Terrorists are evil!" resolutions as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 02:24:10 PM
I don't actually see how a system like the US could lack pork. If you have a small legislative chamber, that requires a high number of votes and lack strong central parties/whipping then surely pork's pretty inevitable?
You could have a line item veto.
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 05:31:06 PM
No, of course not. I'm sure Democrats can flip some Republicans on "Terrorism is bad!" and "Terrorists are evil!" resolutions as well.
What do they need to flip some Republicans for? Up until the Massachessetts election they could have passed those resolutions by themselves.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 05:31:06 PM
No, of course not. I'm sure Democrats can flip some Republicans on "Terrorism is bad!" and "Terrorists are evil!" resolutions as well.
What do they need to flip some Republicans for? Up until the Massachessetts election they could have passed those resolutions by themselves.
As I've said numerous times before, some Democrats may as well be Republicans. Their only contribution was to the impression that Democrats have the supermajority, when in practical terms they didn't.
Quote from: DGuller on January 29, 2010, 06:36:52 PM
As I've said numerous times before, some Democrats may as well be Republicans. Their only contribution was to the impression that Democrats have the supermajority, when in practical terms they didn't.
Your point is taken, although it's interesting that the litmus test you are suggesting for true Democratic-ness is willingness to vote for Obama's health care plan.
But surely if you think hard enough you can come up with one or two examples of Congress voting for a bill without the added inducement of pork.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 03:51:52 PM
Pork is essential for the passage of legislation that enjoys less than majority support. Maybe we shouldn't be passing those bills.
Yes but the majority required in the US legislature is 60% which is unusual. And I think this effectively makes reform of anything impossible. At least in continental Europe with parties and coalitions and consensus you can build a majority to change something. In the UK we accept that our elected dictatorship will only, at best, have the support of around 40% of the people but they'll have 50%+1 seats, which is all they need. How does the US practically reform anything, especially anything popular?
To give an example, in the UK all major parties have agreed that the pension age has to rise, because we can't afford it otherwise - so they're all committed to raising it to 68 and there's talk of 70. The only disagreement is the speed and even then it's a practical difference of 4-5 years. I believe in other continental European countries there's been a similar consensus reached. Our pension plans aren't sustainable so they have to go up. Though it may be unpopular that'll pass (not least because people my age expect that we'll work until 70 before we get a state pension, if we get one at all). How will the US reform social security?
Your proposal sounds to me like Congress should spend enormous times doing very little except what's more or less popular - regardless of cost - except for occassional periods of crisis when it might have to make some changes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 08:33:26 PM
Yes but the majority required in the US legislature is 60% which is unusual.
It's a simple majority for the budget though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 08:33:26 PM
Yes but the majority required in the US legislature is 60% which is unusual. And I think this effectively makes reform of anything impossible. At least in continental Europe with parties and coalitions and consensus you can build a majority to change something. In the UK we accept that our elected dictatorship will only, at best, have the support of around 40% of the people but they'll have 50%+1 seats, which is all they need. How does the US practically reform anything, especially anything popular?
To give an example, in the UK all major parties have agreed that the pension age has to rise, because we can't afford it otherwise - so they're all committed to raising it to 68 and there's talk of 70. The only disagreement is the speed and even then it's a practical difference of 4-5 years. I believe in other continental European countries there's been a similar consensus reached. Our pension plans aren't sustainable so they have to go up. Though it may be unpopular that'll pass (not least because people my age expect that we'll work until 70 before we get a state pension, if we get one at all). How will the US reform social security?
Your proposal sounds to me like Congress should spend enormous times doing very little except what's more or less popular - regardless of cost - except for occassional periods of crisis when it might have to make some changes.
You don't need 60% in the House. Why should we ever spend a dime of pork in that chamber?
I agree there are a handful of long term systematic issues who's solution will involve short term pain and therefore be unpopular. I could grudgingly accept buying off one or two swing votes to get those kinds of things addressed. What percentage of bills that get passed do you think fall into that category?
Otherwise do it the old fashioned way, build public consensus. 9 years ago when Bubba signed Kyoto no one in the US had even heard of global warming. Now there's broad consensus that we need to do something about it, though exactly what is undetermined.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 09:34:46 PM9 years ago when Bubba signed Kyoto no one in the US had even heard of global warming.
It was a topic in class and on Earth Day earlier, it just wasn't on the radar of most politicians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 09:34:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 29, 2010, 08:33:26 PM
Yes but the majority required in the US legislature is 60% which is unusual. And I think this effectively makes reform of anything impossible. At least in continental Europe with parties and coalitions and consensus you can build a majority to change something. In the UK we accept that our elected dictatorship will only, at best, have the support of around 40% of the people but they'll have 50%+1 seats, which is all they need. How does the US practically reform anything, especially anything popular?
To give an example, in the UK all major parties have agreed that the pension age has to rise, because we can't afford it otherwise - so they're all committed to raising it to 68 and there's talk of 70. The only disagreement is the speed and even then it's a practical difference of 4-5 years. I believe in other continental European countries there's been a similar consensus reached. Our pension plans aren't sustainable so they have to go up. Though it may be unpopular that'll pass (not least because people my age expect that we'll work until 70 before we get a state pension, if we get one at all). How will the US reform social security?
Your proposal sounds to me like Congress should spend enormous times doing very little except what's more or less popular - regardless of cost - except for occassional periods of crisis when it might have to make some changes.
You don't need 60% in the House. Why should we ever spend a dime of pork in that chamber?
I agree there are a handful of long term systematic issues who's solution will involve short term pain and therefore be unpopular. I could grudgingly accept buying off one or two swing votes to get those kinds of things addressed. What percentage of bills that get passed do you think fall into that category?
Otherwise do it the old fashioned way, build public consensus. 9 years ago when Bubba signed Kyoto no one in the US had even heard of global warming. Now there's broad consensus that we need to do something about it, though exactly what is undetermined.
Not anymore, that consensus evaporated within the last year along with the credibility of the "scientists" that were pushing the hoax.
So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2010, 01:00:23 AM
So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?
Global warming fear mongers like Berkut and McCain are allied with Al'Qaeda. Didn't you hear their latest message?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2010, 01:00:23 AM
So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?
The emails proved that there was a conspiracy.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 30, 2010, 02:16:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2010, 01:00:23 AM
So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?
The emails proved that there was a conspiracy.
It's not so much a conspiracy as it is ideologues who will do anything to advance their agenda.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 30, 2010, 02:16:38 AM
The emails proved that there was a conspiracy.
Al Gore is an evil, evil man.
Quote from: Hansmeister on January 30, 2010, 02:16:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2010, 01:00:23 AM
So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?
The emails proved that there was a conspiracy.
:lmfao:
Thanks, Hans. Best laugh I've had all week.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2010, 09:34:46 PM
I agree there are a handful of long term systematic issues who's solution will involve short term pain and therefore be unpopular. I could grudgingly accept buying off one or two swing votes to get those kinds of things addressed. What percentage of bills that get passed do you think fall into that category?
Not so many.
QuoteOtherwise do it the old fashioned way, build public consensus. 9 years ago when Bubba signed Kyoto no one in the US had even heard of global warming. Now there's broad consensus that we need to do something about it, though exactly what is undetermined.
Wonderful. 9 years of consensus building and 51% of Americans believe global warming is happening and is man-made. I'm not convinced it's the old-fashioned way either, except in a rose-tinted glasses view of the past.
WWI, WWII, NATO, Marshall Plan, Civil Rights.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2010, 10:21:04 AM
WWI, WWII, NATO, Marshall Plan, Civil Rights.
Wars are surprisingly easy to rally support for, especially when you're attacked.
The Marshall Plan was almost half the size Europeans asked for and roughly 50% less than what Truman wanted and was vociferously attacked by both left and right (the far-left didn't like that the US had failed to reach a deal with the USSR and the right just didn't like it). The start of the Marshall Plan was to some extent done via the executive alone - Truman sending money to support the Greeks and the Turks and restrict Soviet influence - and that was sent a year before Congress finished with it. What really made the Marshall Plan pass wasn't 'old fashioned consensus building' it was the coup in Czechoslovakia that made it clear that the US needed to counter Soviet influence in Europe. After protracted negotiations over the size of the plan and the way it would work it only took a month after the coup in Prague to get the first installment improved. However I believe that spending money on Europe was, with the recession and the Korean war, something the Republicans used against the Democrats in the 1950 mid-terms.
Civil Rights I'll give you. But if that's how long it takes to build an old fashioned consensus then assuming Social Security has financial issues in twenty years or so you should be able to solve it by about 2150.
Edit: Incidentally the first vote on the Marshall Plan, before the Czech coup, was short of 60 votes though only by 4.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 29, 2010, 05:50:32 PM
You could have a line item veto.
I thought about this and I dislike the idea. It seems to give far too much power to the President in my opinion. What's the point of a legislature if the President then has the power to cherry-pick every law that's passed and act as a sort-of sole legislator?