Bush Speechwriter David Frum says Republican Party has been hijacked
-
RedBlackAttack
...by the extreme wing of the party.
This pretty much re-affirmed everything that I have been saying all along. The Republicans need to re-evaluate who they are allowing to set their policy decisions, because those people have not done them any favors in the last several years.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspxConservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours. -
fish82
1. Shrum is a retard. The Dems have the biggest farking majority in a generation, and they still could only pull this thing out by the skin of their teeth. Thus, I fail to see how this is the "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s." A more accurate assessment would be "The Democrats, through some last minute wheeling/dealing, narrowly avoided the biggest legislative face-plant in a generation."RedBlackAttack wrote: ...by the extreme wing of the party.
This pretty much re-affirmed everything that I have been saying all along. The Republicans need to re-evaluate who they are allowing to set their policy decisions, because those people have not done them any favors in the last several years.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspxConservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
2. Lest we all forget that depending on the poll, about 55-60% of the country agrees with those Wascaly Extweemist Wepulicans on this issue.
3. Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history...a mere 2 years after being pronounced Dead For A Generation or More by those "in the know."
4. You people really need to get off this Fox News/Rush Limbaugh kick. If you really think that Rush/Fox is driving this, then you're just flat out not paying very close attention. -
jhay78
RedBlackAttack= Boom Roastedfish82 wrote:
1. Shrum is a retard. The Dems have the biggest farking majority in a generation, and they still could only pull this thing out by the skin of their teeth. Thus, I fail to see how this is the "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s." A more accurate assessment would be "The Democrats, through some last minute wheeling/dealing, narrowly avoided the biggest legislative face-plant in a generation."RedBlackAttack wrote: ...by the extreme wing of the party.
This pretty much re-affirmed everything that I have been saying all along. The Republicans need to re-evaluate who they are allowing to set their policy decisions, because those people have not done them any favors in the last several years.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspxConservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
2. Lest we all forget that depending on the poll, about 55-60% of the country agrees with those Wascaly Extweemist Wepulicans on this issue.
3. Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history...a mere 2 years after being pronounced Dead For A Generation or More by those "in the know."
4. You people really need to get off this Fox News/Rush Limbaugh kick. If you really think that Rush/Fox is driving this, then you're just flat out not paying very close attention.
If the mainstream media did their jobs (or even attempted to), they wouldn't have slammed GW Bush at every turn and ignored BHO's radical associations and zero experience in favor of his cult personality and big speeches.
LOL at "by November the economy will have improved." -
cbus4lifeThey need to get Harrison Ford to tell those hijackers to get off their plane.
-
queencitybuckeyeThere is little doubt that the premise is somewhat true. Anyone pretending that the Republicans are the small government side of the political spectrum are attempting to fool others and/or have successfully fooled themselves.
-
IggyPride00
Actually, BHO's approval rating has swung 9 points in the past week in Gallup (haven't seen Rasmussen but I am sure he is probably in the 30's) from 46/P-47/N to 51/P-43/N.Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history
That he could be over 50% still with 10% unemployment and having just past the most unpopular health care bill of all time is a scary proposition for anyone convinced he is a lame duck that will be easily picked off in 2012.
If things start to turn around even slightly economically he is poised to become a monster because somewhere out there he seems to have a sizable support base that seems to be totally immune to whatever happens to him politically negative. -
queencitybuckeye
Which would be unfortunate as it would perpetuate and reinforce an incorrecy cause and effect relationship. Of course, it somewhat depends on how bad the coming inflation gets, as he'll own that too, and legitimately.IggyPride00 wrote: If things start to turn around even slightly economically he is poised to become a monster because somewhere out there he seems to have a sizable support base that seems to be totally immune to whatever happens to him politically negative. -
fish82
The 3 most recent have him between 46-51, with an average of just under 48.IggyPride00 wrote:
Actually, BHO's approval rating has swung 9 points in the past week in Gallup (haven't seen Rasmussen but I am sure he is probably in the 30's) from 46/P-47/N to 51/P-43/N.Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history
That he could be over 50% still with 10% unemployment and having just past the most unpopular health care bill of all time is a scary proposition for anyone convinced he is a lame duck that will be easily picked off in 2012.
If things start to turn around even slightly economically he is poised to become a monster because somewhere out there he seems to have a sizable support base that seems to be totally immune to whatever happens to him politically negative.
I'm not suggesting these numbers predict doom for Bam come 2012. To try and predict that today would be a fools errand. I'm saying that his numbers suggest an inability to provide significant enough coattails to save the Dems this fall.
I've said before and I'll repeat here that I think the economy will improve enough by 2012 to drag BHO across the finish line for a second term. I like the idea of him having to work with a GOP Congress much better though. -
tk421
Two years ago no one outside of Chicago knew who Obama was. To say that two years from now some unknown can not come from the Republican party and win the election is party bias. We've now had the first AA president, perhaps the first woman president will come from the Repubs(NOT PALIN), or even better, a third party.fish82 wrote:
The 3 most recent have him between 46-51, with an average of just under 48.IggyPride00 wrote:
Actually, BHO's approval rating has swung 9 points in the past week in Gallup (haven't seen Rasmussen but I am sure he is probably in the 30's) from 46/P-47/N to 51/P-43/N.Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history
That he could be over 50% still with 10% unemployment and having just past the most unpopular health care bill of all time is a scary proposition for anyone convinced he is a lame duck that will be easily picked off in 2012.
If things start to turn around even slightly economically he is poised to become a monster because somewhere out there he seems to have a sizable support base that seems to be totally immune to whatever happens to him politically negative.
I'm not suggesting these numbers predict doom for Bam come 2012. To try and predict that today would be a fools errand. I'm saying that his numbers suggest an inability to provide significant enough coattails to save the Dems this fall.
I've said before and I'll repeat here that I think the economy will improve enough by 2012 to drag BHO across the finish line for a second term. I like the idea of him having to work with a GOP Congress much better though.
The point is no one knows what will happen, but to say that BO will be guaranteed a 2nd term is crazy. Hell, the economy could crash even further before then. -
majorspark
You mean act more like democrats. One of the reasons that Bush and the republicans took a beating is because they refused to govern as conservatives. Mostly in the fiscal side. A costly new entitlement program and unbridled military spending.RedBlackAttack wrote: ...by the extreme wing of the party.
This pretty much re-affirmed everything that I have been saying all along. The Republicans need to re-evaluate who they are allowing to set their policy decisions, because those people have not done them any favors in the last several years.
If republicans take power in 2010 or 2012 and they refuse to govern with some conservative balls, shrinking the size and intrusiveness of the federal government, and break out the budget ax, they will be back out on their ass so fast their heads will spin. Which would be no surprise to me one bit by the way. I'll just shake my head and marvel at the lust for power in once someone sets foot in Washington.
Why would republicans want to take the advice of an upopular president's speech writer. -
PaladinBack on the subject, Frum is correct. One can only hope that the wacko wing of the party stays in power. The demonstrations of hate, bigotry and obstructing govt working to fix problems bode well for D's in the elections. Being a Mid-term election, some losses are typical and expected. However, its wishful thinking to believe the Ds are going to be kicked out . The hate groups have been in the news often but its the voters, happy to have the gains made in healthcare that will keep D losses at a minimum. Keep up the talk that the Rs are going to win elections. Frum sees what is happening. Going to force Congress to take back the gains made in healthcare....... "repeal" it ,
And the elections in '12 looks like another term for Obama as there is no credible R leader to run. By then, demographics will prevail again and the extreme wing of R kooks will be unelectable in much of the country. You have to BE FOR something that advances the country, not looking for "another tax cut" or anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage. What a platform !! -
fish82
Frum sees what you people are praying will happen...not what's actually happening. Keep humping your "hate-group" schtick though...it's really been a kick ass strategery so far! :rolleyes:Paladin wrote: Back on the subject, Frum is correct. One can only hope that the wacko wing of the party stays in power. The demonstrations of hate, bigotry and obstructing govt working to fix problems bode well for D's in the elections. Being a Mid-term election, some losses are typical and expected. However, its wishful thinking to believe the Ds are going to be kicked out . The hate groups have been in the news often but its the voters, happy to have the gains made in healthcare that will keep D losses at a minimum. Keep up the talk that the Rs are going to win elections. Frum sees what is happening. Going to force Congress to take back the gains made in healthcare....... "repeal" it ,
And the elections in '12 looks like another term for Obama as there is no credible R leader to run. By then, demographics will prevail again and the extreme wing of R kooks will be unelectable in much of the country. You have to BE FOR something that advances the country, not looking for "another tax cut" or anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage. What a platform !!
-
I Wear Pants
Now why exactly would anyone not slam G.W. Bush?jhay78 wrote:
If the mainstream media did their jobs (or even attempted to), they wouldn't have slammed GW Bush at every turn and ignored BHO's radical associations and zero experience in favor of his cult personality and big speeches. -
HitsRus
majorspark wrote:
You mean act more like democrats. One of the reasons that Bush and the republicans took a beating is because they refused to govern as conservatives. Mostly in the fiscal side. A costly new entitlement program and unbridled military spending.
Exactly.
For the first time in a long time, I'm proud of our Republican reps and leadership for taking this to the wall on conservative principle. The explosion of government spending under GWB was bad enough.
Now this.
-
RedBlackAttack
1. Who is Shrum? I've never heard of him, but Frum is certainly not 'retarded' and I find it interesting how you are so quick to cast aside a fellow conservative because he doesn't tell you exactly what you want to hear.fish82 wrote:
1. Shrum is a retard. The Dems have the biggest farking majority in a generation, and they still could only pull this thing out by the skin of their teeth. Thus, I fail to see how this is the "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s." A more accurate assessment would be "The Democrats, through some last minute wheeling/dealing, narrowly avoided the biggest legislative face-plant in a generation."RedBlackAttack wrote: ...by the extreme wing of the party.
This pretty much re-affirmed everything that I have been saying all along. The Republicans need to re-evaluate who they are allowing to set their policy decisions, because those people have not done them any favors in the last several years.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspxConservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
2. Lest we all forget that depending on the poll, about 55-60% of the country agrees with those Wascaly Extweemist Wepulicans on this issue.
3. Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history...a mere 2 years after being pronounced Dead For A Generation or More by those "in the know."
4. You people really need to get off this Fox News/Rush Limbaugh kick. If you really think that Rush/Fox is driving this, then you're just flat out not paying very close attention.
Also, the Dems pulled this out 'by the skin of their teeth' because there are very moderate Democrats in congress that align more with the Republican side of the aisle than the Democratic side.
There are literally no moderate Republicans that are willing to work with Democrats on any important issues... At least, not since Obama took office. Olympia Snowe was damn near thrown out of her own party for simply having discussions with Obama and weighing her options on whether or not she should work with him on the bill to attempt to find a middle ground.
Healthcare is clearly a very important, very controversial issue and the fact that the conservative branch shunned themselves from the conversation was a strategy that had me scratching my head from the very beginning. I may lean to the left (and I say lean because I think conservatives often have good ideas), but that doesn't mean that I wanted this piece of legislation to be entirely crafted by one side of the aisle with no input from the other aside from some last minute amendments that had more to do with stalling the process than helping the bill.
I would have preferred an honest discussion between both sides and a bill that both parties could be happy with. The Republicans decided that it was better to demonize the President and hope that it didn't pass. That strategy failed.
2. We just finished with one of the most hotly contested debates in which congress was the center stage and America historically hates those kinds of moments, regardless if it is controlled by the right or left. What the polls tell me is that the American people, by and large, grew tired of the debate and were ready to move on.
The polls reflect the dissatisfaction with the process, not the bill itself... Since I wonder how many of these people polled have even looked at the legislation. I predict that a year from now, when some of the regulations take hold and the taxation has not begun, those poll numbers will do a 180.
I don't blame the American people for being upset at this process... It was often mind-bending and, often times, rife with immature bickering from both sides.
3. Obama's poll numbers have remained steady for months.
4. Are you joking? The tea party movement was basically grown out of FoxNews' attempts to fan the flames of some very frustrated people. When the movement was first getting going and no one even knew what the hell it was about, FNC was posting schedules for the meets, urging people to show up and support the cause. Then, they covered the events as if they were equivalent to the 1960s March on Washington.
Hell... FNC is responsible for the extreme right wingers calling congress last week and clogging up all of the phone lines. They posted the phone number and urged people to call on nearly every show for a week.
Obviously, there are some people on the right that are very upset with the direction of the country. I get that... But to act as though Limbaugh, Beck, and especially the FNC as a whole hasn't helped shape the current climate in Washington is just downright foolish. They wield a lot of power... Too much, imo, and too much according to a guy that you probably used to respect, until he called a spade a spade. -
fish82
1. To be honest, I've never thought much of Frum. I don't even like him enough to spell his name right. I have zero difficulty pointing out stupidity, regardless of party.RedBlackAttack wrote:
1. Who is Shrum? I've never heard of him, but Frum is certainly not 'retarded' and I find it interesting how you are so quick to cast aside a fellow conservative because he doesn't tell you exactly what you want to hear.fish82 wrote:
1. Shrum is a retard. The Dems have the biggest farking majority in a generation, and they still could only pull this thing out by the skin of their teeth. Thus, I fail to see how this is the "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s." A more accurate assessment would be "The Democrats, through some last minute wheeling/dealing, narrowly avoided the biggest legislative face-plant in a generation."RedBlackAttack wrote: ...by the extreme wing of the party.
This pretty much re-affirmed everything that I have been saying all along. The Republicans need to re-evaluate who they are allowing to set their policy decisions, because those people have not done them any favors in the last several years.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspxConservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
2. Lest we all forget that depending on the poll, about 55-60% of the country agrees with those Wascaly Extweemist Wepulicans on this issue.
3. Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history...a mere 2 years after being pronounced Dead For A Generation or More by those "in the know."
4. You people really need to get off this Fox News/Rush Limbaugh kick. If you really think that Rush/Fox is driving this, then you're just flat out not paying very close attention.
Also, the Dems pulled this out 'by the skin of their teeth' because there are very moderate Democrats in congress that align more with the Republican side of the aisle than the Democratic side.
There are literally no moderate Republicans that are willing to work with Democrats on any important issues... At least, not since Obama took office. Olympia Snowe was damn near thrown out of her own party for simply having discussions with Obama and weighing her options on whether or not she should work with him on the bill to attempt to find a middle ground.
Healthcare is clearly a very important, very controversial issue and the fact that the conservative branch shunned themselves from the conversation was a strategy that had me scratching my head from the very beginning. I may lean to the left (and I say lean because I think conservatives often have good ideas), but that doesn't mean that I wanted this piece of legislation to be entirely crafted by one side of the aisle with no input from the other aside from some last minute amendments that had more to do with stalling the process than helping the bill.
I would have preferred an honest discussion between both sides and a bill that both parties could be happy with. The Republicans decided that it was better to demonize the President and hope that it didn't pass. That strategy failed.
2. We just finished with one of the most hotly contested debates in which congress was the center stage and America historically hates those kinds of moments, regardless if it is controlled by the right or left. What the polls tell me is that the American people, by and large, grew tired of the debate and were ready to move on.
The polls reflect the dissatisfaction with the process, not the bill itself... Since I wonder how many of these people polled have even looked at the legislation. I predict that a year from now, when some of the regulations take hold and the taxation has not begun, those poll numbers will do a 180.
I don't blame the American people for being upset at this process... It was often mind-bending and, often times, rife with immature bickering from both sides.
3. Obama's poll numbers have remained steady for months.
4. Are you joking? The tea party movement was basically grown out of FoxNews' attempts to fan the flames of some very frustrated people. When the movement was first getting going and no one even knew what the hell it was about, FNC was posting schedules for the meets, urging people to show up and support the cause. Then, they covered the events as if they were equivalent to the 1960s March on Washington.
Hell... FNC is responsible for the extreme right wingers calling congress last week and clogging up all of the phone lines. They posted the phone number and urged people to call on nearly every show for a week.
Obviously, there are some people on the right that are very upset with the direction of the country. I get that... But to act as though Limbaugh, Beck, and especially the FNC as a whole hasn't helped shape the current climate in Washington is just downright foolish. They wield a lot of power... Too much, imo, and too much according to a guy that you probably used to respect, until he called a spade a spade.
And for the record, the GOP put forth TWO separate healthcare proposals last summer...both of which immediately went into the circular file without consideration. Some yummy bi-partisan goodness there, huh?
2. I've not seen a single poll that mentions Americans being "tired of the process and not the bill." If one exists...please be so kind as to post it up for us.
3. On 12/30/09, his average was 50-44. Today he's at 47-47. You do the math.
4. No, I'm not joking, and you just exposed your blatant ignorance of the origins of the movement. And for the record, more people attended the Washington Tea Party march than did many of the 60s marches.
FNC has about one tenth the viewership of the Big 3 and other cable networks combined. To say they're shaping the debate when the left is still sporting that kind of firepower is beyond silly.
Your last sentence is just silly speculation because I'm willing to call a spade a spade. -
RedBlackAttack
1. It takes more than just releasing a contrasting bill to get things done in Washington when you are the minority party. There should be a give and take... Intelligent discussion on both sides...fish82 wrote:
1. To be honest, I've never thought much of Frum. I don't even like him enough to spell his name right. I have zero difficulty pointing out stupidity, regardless of party.RedBlackAttack wrote:
1. Who is Shrum? I've never heard of him, but Frum is certainly not 'retarded' and I find it interesting how you are so quick to cast aside a fellow conservative because he doesn't tell you exactly what you want to hear.fish82 wrote:
1. Shrum is a retard. The Dems have the biggest farking majority in a generation, and they still could only pull this thing out by the skin of their teeth. Thus, I fail to see how this is the "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s." A more accurate assessment would be "The Democrats, through some last minute wheeling/dealing, narrowly avoided the biggest legislative face-plant in a generation."RedBlackAttack wrote: ...by the extreme wing of the party.
This pretty much re-affirmed everything that I have been saying all along. The Republicans need to re-evaluate who they are allowing to set their policy decisions, because those people have not done them any favors in the last several years.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspxConservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
2. Lest we all forget that depending on the poll, about 55-60% of the country agrees with those Wascaly Extweemist Wepulicans on this issue.
3. Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history...a mere 2 years after being pronounced Dead For A Generation or More by those "in the know."
4. You people really need to get off this Fox News/Rush Limbaugh kick. If you really think that Rush/Fox is driving this, then you're just flat out not paying very close attention.
Also, the Dems pulled this out 'by the skin of their teeth' because there are very moderate Democrats in congress that align more with the Republican side of the aisle than the Democratic side.
There are literally no moderate Republicans that are willing to work with Democrats on any important issues... At least, not since Obama took office. Olympia Snowe was damn near thrown out of her own party for simply having discussions with Obama and weighing her options on whether or not she should work with him on the bill to attempt to find a middle ground.
Healthcare is clearly a very important, very controversial issue and the fact that the conservative branch shunned themselves from the conversation was a strategy that had me scratching my head from the very beginning. I may lean to the left (and I say lean because I think conservatives often have good ideas), but that doesn't mean that I wanted this piece of legislation to be entirely crafted by one side of the aisle with no input from the other aside from some last minute amendments that had more to do with stalling the process than helping the bill.
I would have preferred an honest discussion between both sides and a bill that both parties could be happy with. The Republicans decided that it was better to demonize the President and hope that it didn't pass. That strategy failed.
2. We just finished with one of the most hotly contested debates in which congress was the center stage and America historically hates those kinds of moments, regardless if it is controlled by the right or left. What the polls tell me is that the American people, by and large, grew tired of the debate and were ready to move on.
The polls reflect the dissatisfaction with the process, not the bill itself... Since I wonder how many of these people polled have even looked at the legislation. I predict that a year from now, when some of the regulations take hold and the taxation has not begun, those poll numbers will do a 180.
I don't blame the American people for being upset at this process... It was often mind-bending and, often times, rife with immature bickering from both sides.
3. Obama's poll numbers have remained steady for months.
4. Are you joking? The tea party movement was basically grown out of FoxNews' attempts to fan the flames of some very frustrated people. When the movement was first getting going and no one even knew what the hell it was about, FNC was posting schedules for the meets, urging people to show up and support the cause. Then, they covered the events as if they were equivalent to the 1960s March on Washington.
Hell... FNC is responsible for the extreme right wingers calling congress last week and clogging up all of the phone lines. They posted the phone number and urged people to call on nearly every show for a week.
Obviously, there are some people on the right that are very upset with the direction of the country. I get that... But to act as though Limbaugh, Beck, and especially the FNC as a whole hasn't helped shape the current climate in Washington is just downright foolish. They wield a lot of power... Too much, imo, and too much according to a guy that you probably used to respect, until he called a spade a spade.
And for the record, the GOP put forth TWO separate healthcare proposals last summer...both of which immediately went into the circular file without consideration. Some yummy bi-partisan goodness there, huh?
2. I've not seen a single poll that mentions Americans being "tired of the process and not the bill." If one exists...please be so kind as to post it up for us.
3. On 12/30/09, his average was 50-44. Today he's at 47-47. You do the math.
4. No, I'm not joking, and you just exposed your blatant ignorance of the origins of the movement. And for the record, more people attended the Washington Tea Party march than did many of the 60s marches.
FNC has about one tenth the viewership of the Big 3 and other cable networks combined. To say they're shaping the debate when the left is still sporting that kind of firepower is beyond silly.
Your last sentence is just silly speculation because I'm willing to call a spade a spade.
"If we agree to vote with you on this, you agree with that..."
Instead, Republicans painted themselves into a corner by claiming Obama wanted to kill our grandparents and destroy the fabric of America. That isn't a constructive debate and it was done to scare the American people into turning on the proposed bill and to rile up the base.
How can you work with someone that you are publicly calling a baby-killer/grandma-killer? The Republicans never showed a modicum of interest in working with Obama on this plan to make it more appeasing to both sides.
Olympia Snowe is a prime example of someone that would have been willing to work on the bill, but she was spurned by the radical wing of the Republican party to the point wherein she had to gave and join the side of opposition.
2. It's called common sense... And polls do show that when individual pieces of the bill are narrowed down to those being surveyed that the response is much more positive.
3. A 3 percent drop considering that congress has dipped to around 11 percent is hardly noteworthy. The polls tell you that the people have no confidence in congress but that Obama is still widely liked, even though unemployment is still kicking around 10 percent and we just finished one of the messiest, partisan debates in recent memory.
4. So, you think the Big 3 are on the level of FNC when it comes to advancing an ideology and riling up a specific group of people? I have a BA in journalism and I can tell you that today's media is all pathetic, but FNC literally breaks every rule that honest reporting is supposed to abide by.
Don't get me wrong... I have some of the same problems with MSNBC and my disdain for Olbermann is on the level of my disgust with Beck and Hannity. But, there is no other news station that has the power of FNC, because it is far and away the most successful 24 hour news station and it is the most consistent in its framing of the conversation to appeal to a very specific political ideology.
I hope that you aren't taking this debate personally, because I still respect you as a poster and we probably agree on much more than we disagree upon. No hard feelings. -
RedBlackAttack
I can be a bit long-winded. Sorry. :shy:ccrunner609 wrote: This thread might have the longest posts ever on it. -
fish82
Heck no....I'm glad you finally wandered in here! I need a worthy adversary for a change!RedBlackAttack wrote:
1. It takes more than just releasing a contrasting bill to get things done in Washington when you are the minority party. There should be a give and take... Intelligent discussion on both sides...fish82 wrote:
1. To be honest, I've never thought much of Frum. I don't even like him enough to spell his name right. I have zero difficulty pointing out stupidity, regardless of party.RedBlackAttack wrote:
1. Who is Shrum? I've never heard of him, but Frum is certainly not 'retarded' and I find it interesting how you are so quick to cast aside a fellow conservative because he doesn't tell you exactly what you want to hear.fish82 wrote:
1. Shrum is a retard. The Dems have the biggest farking majority in a generation, and they still could only pull this thing out by the skin of their teeth. Thus, I fail to see how this is the "most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s." A more accurate assessment would be "The Democrats, through some last minute wheeling/dealing, narrowly avoided the biggest legislative face-plant in a generation."RedBlackAttack wrote: ...by the extreme wing of the party.
This pretty much re-affirmed everything that I have been saying all along. The Republicans need to re-evaluate who they are allowing to set their policy decisions, because those people have not done them any favors in the last several years.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspxConservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
2. Lest we all forget that depending on the poll, about 55-60% of the country agrees with those Wascaly Extweemist Wepulicans on this issue.
3. Both Bam's approval numbers and every reputable congressional generic poll/model suggest that the Wascaly Wepuplicans are poised for quite possibly the biggest comeback in history...a mere 2 years after being pronounced Dead For A Generation or More by those "in the know."
4. You people really need to get off this Fox News/Rush Limbaugh kick. If you really think that Rush/Fox is driving this, then you're just flat out not paying very close attention.
Also, the Dems pulled this out 'by the skin of their teeth' because there are very moderate Democrats in congress that align more with the Republican side of the aisle than the Democratic side.
There are literally no moderate Republicans that are willing to work with Democrats on any important issues... At least, not since Obama took office. Olympia Snowe was damn near thrown out of her own party for simply having discussions with Obama and weighing her options on whether or not she should work with him on the bill to attempt to find a middle ground.
Healthcare is clearly a very important, very controversial issue and the fact that the conservative branch shunned themselves from the conversation was a strategy that had me scratching my head from the very beginning. I may lean to the left (and I say lean because I think conservatives often have good ideas), but that doesn't mean that I wanted this piece of legislation to be entirely crafted by one side of the aisle with no input from the other aside from some last minute amendments that had more to do with stalling the process than helping the bill.
I would have preferred an honest discussion between both sides and a bill that both parties could be happy with. The Republicans decided that it was better to demonize the President and hope that it didn't pass. That strategy failed.
2. We just finished with one of the most hotly contested debates in which congress was the center stage and America historically hates those kinds of moments, regardless if it is controlled by the right or left. What the polls tell me is that the American people, by and large, grew tired of the debate and were ready to move on.
The polls reflect the dissatisfaction with the process, not the bill itself... Since I wonder how many of these people polled have even looked at the legislation. I predict that a year from now, when some of the regulations take hold and the taxation has not begun, those poll numbers will do a 180.
I don't blame the American people for being upset at this process... It was often mind-bending and, often times, rife with immature bickering from both sides.
3. Obama's poll numbers have remained steady for months.
4. Are you joking? The tea party movement was basically grown out of FoxNews' attempts to fan the flames of some very frustrated people. When the movement was first getting going and no one even knew what the hell it was about, FNC was posting schedules for the meets, urging people to show up and support the cause. Then, they covered the events as if they were equivalent to the 1960s March on Washington.
Hell... FNC is responsible for the extreme right wingers calling congress last week and clogging up all of the phone lines. They posted the phone number and urged people to call on nearly every show for a week.
Obviously, there are some people on the right that are very upset with the direction of the country. I get that... But to act as though Limbaugh, Beck, and especially the FNC as a whole hasn't helped shape the current climate in Washington is just downright foolish. They wield a lot of power... Too much, imo, and too much according to a guy that you probably used to respect, until he called a spade a spade.
And for the record, the GOP put forth TWO separate healthcare proposals last summer...both of which immediately went into the circular file without consideration. Some yummy bi-partisan goodness there, huh?
2. I've not seen a single poll that mentions Americans being "tired of the process and not the bill." If one exists...please be so kind as to post it up for us.
3. On 12/30/09, his average was 50-44. Today he's at 47-47. You do the math.
4. No, I'm not joking, and you just exposed your blatant ignorance of the origins of the movement. And for the record, more people attended the Washington Tea Party march than did many of the 60s marches.
FNC has about one tenth the viewership of the Big 3 and other cable networks combined. To say they're shaping the debate when the left is still sporting that kind of firepower is beyond silly.
Your last sentence is just silly speculation because I'm willing to call a spade a spade.
"If we agree to vote with you on this, you agree with that..."
Instead, Republicans painted themselves into a corner by claiming Obama wanted to kill our grandparents and destroy the fabric of America. That isn't a constructive debate and it was done to scare the American people into turning on the proposed bill and to rile up the base.
How can you work with someone that you are publicly calling a baby-killer/grandma-killer? The Republicans never showed a modicum of interest in working with Obama on this plan to make it more appeasing to both sides.
Olympia Snowe is a prime example of someone that would have been willing to work on the bill, but she was spurned by the radical wing of the Republican party to the point wherein she had to gave and join the side of opposition.
2. It's called common sense... And polls do show that when individual pieces of the bill are narrowed down to those being surveyed that the response is much more positive.
3. A 3 percent drop considering that congress has dipped to around 11 percent is hardly noteworthy. The polls tell you that the people have no confidence in congress but that Obama is still widely liked, even though unemployment is still kicking around 10 percent and we just finished one of the messiest, partisan debates in recent memory.
4. So, you think the Big 3 are on the level of FNC when it comes to advancing an ideology and riling up a specific group of people? I have a BA in journalism and I can tell you that today's media is all pathetic, but FNC literally breaks every rule that honest reporting is supposed to abide by.
Don't get me wrong... I have some of the same problems with MSNBC and my disdain for Olbermann is on the level of my disgust with Beck and Hannity. But, there is no other news station that has the power of FNC, because it is far and away the most successful 24 hour news station and it is the most consistent in its framing of the conversation to appeal to a very specific political ideology.
I hope that you aren't taking this debate personally, because I still respect you as a poster and we probably agree on much more than we disagree upon. No hard feelings.
-
dtdtim
Not to play semantics because I agree with your post for the most part but the first sentence is completely untrue.tk421 wrote: Two years ago no one outside of Chicago knew who Obama was. To say that two years from now some unknown can not come from the Republican party and win the election is party bias. We've now had the first AA president, perhaps the first woman president will come from the Repubs(NOT PALIN), or even better, a third party.
The point is no one knows what will happen, but to say that BO will be guaranteed a 2nd term is crazy. Hell, the economy could crash even further before then. -
CenterBHSFan
You're right. Oprah knew who he was!dtdtim wrote:
Not to play semantics because I agree with your post for the most part but the first sentence is completely untrue.tk421 wrote: Two years ago no one outside of Chicago knew who Obama was. To say that two years from now some unknown can not come from the Republican party and win the election is party bias. We've now had the first AA president, perhaps the first woman president will come from the Repubs(NOT PALIN), or even better, a third party.
The point is no one knows what will happen, but to say that BO will be guaranteed a 2nd term is crazy. Hell, the economy could crash even further before then.
*edit
Wait....where is she from again? -
RedBlackAttack
Good to hear and I feel the same way. I think one of the major problems with politics in America today is that everything is so segmented.fish82 wrote: Heck no....I'm glad you finally wandered in here! I need a worthy adversary for a change!
This is a conservative channel, that one is liberal.
This is a conservative publication, that one is liberal.
This is a conservative radio station, that... well... there are no liberal radio programs, but you get the idea (lol)
Technology and huge amounts of choices in news/entertainment have offered some benefits, but they have also hurt us because there is no discourse between the two sides of a debate. People seek out what will reinforce what they already believe.
That is unhealthy, imo, and it was the reason why I decided to begin posting on what is clearly a largely conservative political forum. If I don't challenge the beliefs of those that may think differently than me and I don't allow myself to be challenged, I am part of the problem.
I did not come on here to ruffle any feathers, so I hope it is not interpreted as such.
We're healing America, fish... Me and you.
-
tk421
I'd say before the primaries and all the Democratic nomination stuff happened, the average American outside of Chicago didn't know who Obama was. Not everyone watches Oprah and I certainly don't know anyone outside that city who keeps up with Chicago politics.dtdtim wrote:
Not to play semantics because I agree with your post for the most part but the first sentence is completely untrue.tk421 wrote: Two years ago no one outside of Chicago knew who Obama was. To say that two years from now some unknown can not come from the Republican party and win the election is party bias. We've now had the first AA president, perhaps the first woman president will come from the Repubs(NOT PALIN), or even better, a third party.
The point is no one knows what will happen, but to say that BO will be guaranteed a 2nd term is crazy. Hell, the economy could crash even further before then.
I know he was on Oprah but I don't even know what year that was. -
RedBlackAttack
Obama's introduction to the world (or at least the Democrats) was his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. That REALLY put him on the map, although I had heard about him even before that.tk421 wrote:
I'd say before the primaries and all the Democratic nomination stuff happened, the average American outside of Chicago didn't know who Obama was. Not everyone watches Oprah and I certainly don't know anyone outside that city who keeps up with Chicago politics.dtdtim wrote:
Not to play semantics because I agree with your post for the most part but the first sentence is completely untrue.tk421 wrote: Two years ago no one outside of Chicago knew who Obama was. To say that two years from now some unknown can not come from the Republican party and win the election is party bias. We've now had the first AA president, perhaps the first woman president will come from the Repubs(NOT PALIN), or even better, a third party.
The point is no one knows what will happen, but to say that BO will be guaranteed a 2nd term is crazy. Hell, the economy could crash even further before then.
I know he was on Oprah but I don't even know what year that was.
The idea that he came out of nowhere is just not true. Anyone that attended or watched that address at the DNC knew that the party had a serious contender for eventual nomination. -
fish82
Yeah, I hear ya. Politics has become bloodsport...and I don't see any change to that on the horizon.RedBlackAttack wrote:
Good to hear and I feel the same way. I think one of the major problems with politics in America today is that everything is so segmented.fish82 wrote: Heck no....I'm glad you finally wandered in here! I need a worthy adversary for a change!
This is a conservative channel, that one is liberal.
This is a conservative publication, that one is liberal.
This is a conservative radio station, that... well... there are no liberal radio programs, but you get the idea (lol)
Technology and huge amounts of choices in news/entertainment have offered some benefits, but they have also hurt us because there is no discourse between the two sides of a debate. People seek out what will reinforce what they already believe.
That is unhealthy, imo, and it was the reason why I decided to begin posting on what is clearly a largely conservative political forum. If I don't challenge the beliefs of those that may think differently than me and I don't allow myself to be challenged, I am part of the problem.
I did not come on here to ruffle any feathers, so I hope it is not interpreted as such.
We're healing America, fish... Me and you.
None of this matters anyway...your joining the ECOL is a sure sign the Apocalypse is coming and we're all doomed.