|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Calling the largest non-war tax increase in the nation's history "I guess it's raising taxes" and "made folks pay what they were already supposed to" is just partisian revionist history. We can throw in increasing the threshold on Social Security taxes as well as overall payroll taxes. Oh, and taxing up to half of people's social security benefits. Can't fathom how any of that would fly today in conservative world. At least he never passed some massive health care bill that put a burden on to employers. Oh wait..... |
Quote:
I guess suggesting that we were at war in the 1980s is revisionism as well? The Cold War doesn't ring any bells with you I suppose. In any event, having the massive tax cut to help stave off the Carter-led recession being left out of your fact-finding mission is not the most fair representation of Reagan's tax history. Quote:
Democrats only want social programs to win votes, they usually leave the reform aftermath of these programs to hard-working Republicans since afterall, it's their constiuents that actually pay for it.[quote] Quote:
By the time Carters-recession was complete, unemployment sat at 9.5%. It required a lot of efforts on the part of Reagan to bring that back down to around 5% and at the same time he managed to beat the Soviets at their stupid communist expansion game. The mess he was left makes Obama's contant badgery of President Bush laughable, but if the only thing you want to take from it is that he raised taxes so therefore conservatives would hate him, have at it. I can't think of a single politician across the entire American political spectrum that could defeat 1980 Reagan or 1984 Reagan. I can't think of one that wouldn't get landlsided by him. He was a true Republican but he could reach out to the left with more than words. |
Quote:
That's the funny thing. I wasn't bashing Reagan at all. In fact, I agree with a ton of what he did. It's funny because it's basically THE SAME FUCKING THING OBAMA IS DOING. The difference is to partisians like you is that one has a D next to their name, and the other has an R. With partisian hackery, it's not policy vs policy, it's D vs R. You guys are making politics an embarassment. Quote:
All politicians want social programs to win votes. Where were these hard-working Republicans during Medicare reform, No Child Left Behind, faith-based initiatives, farm subsidies, bailouts, or even TARP? They were in power, either holding a heavy majority in both chambers or having the guy who signs the bills into law. As for whos consitutents are paying for it, remember that the Blue states pay in much more in taxes than the Red states, and receive less than what they paid in back. That shouldn't be an issue though, just pointing out the bullshit about how all social programs come from those dirty Democrats. Quote:
Reagan was a great politician. Inspired people, instilled confidence, and got his point across. He would be very tough to beat in any election. Just as Obama was a great politician going into the 2008 campaign. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Reagan would be called a RINO today and be an outcast to most conservatives. Many of the things conservatives are going after Obama for are the same things Reagan did. It's just one has an R and one has a D next to their name. That's all that matters to you people. |
Quote:
Are conservatives saying this or are you saying this for conservatives? There's a big difference. |
Quote:
A Purity Test For The GOP? | TPMDC Reagan wouldn't have passed the test on a lot of those things. He created a huge deficit and ran up debt. He raised taxes on businesses and people. He wasn't all about free-market health care either. Perhaps the biggest one is #6. The issue that gets McCain, Graham and other Republicans called RINOs. Reagan granted amnesty to illegals. |
Quote:
Heh, learn something new everyday, never heard of this before now. So...Google to the rescue! Yes, it's true that the Republican Party does not operate in lock-step. In relation to this specific 'test'...I would disagree it was "handed out by the RNC"...Michael Steele rejected it, the RNC rejected it, and the conservatives--that caught wind of this--were overwhelmingly opposed to it. It was pushed by some guy named Jim Bopp of Right to Life. Hardly a mainstream advocate of the RNC and this article kind of proves it. Republicans reject 'purity test' - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com From what I'm reading I, for instance, line up with Oregon GOP Chairman Bob Tiernan (fierce opposition to), not Jim Bopp (drafter and advocate of). Also, your argument makes even less sense by citing the "RINO", center-right John McCain who obviously was nominated for President by the RNC. |
If Reagan were alive I have no doubt he'd shape himself into what could get elected. He was a gifted politician and not so much of an ideologue that he would sacrifice electoral success for purity.
However, the policies that Reagan supported as a governor and President would make him toxic to today's GOP that sees people like Bob Bennett, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Dede Scozzafava, etc. as too liberal. He negotiated with the Soviets, when today a new START treaty is being opposed by much of the GOP. He left Beirut, when today's GOP would say he cut and ran. He traded arms to the Iranians, which would get AIPAC and its supporters to oppose him. As a governor he signed into law a permissive abortion bill. That in itself would be hard to overcome. He had a very close relationship with Tip O'Neill and negotiated with the Dems on almost everything. The Reagan that the GOP reveres is a caricature of the real man. He's become an ideological guidepost, but the real man was willing to compromise on almost any detail to forward his larger goals. IMO he was certainly conservative enough, but in today's GOP it's hard to see how his actions wouldn't be attacked as too liberal, too weak, and too godless. |
Quote:
BTW, I'm pretty sure that "purity" is a new liberal label. I'm not sure though. Quote:
Since when do Presidents have the full ideological backing of everybody intheir party? I don't get this line of rationalization. Certainly not every Democrat thought it no big deal that Barack Obama had absolutely no experience dealing wtih Big Oil and their safety regulations and the such? Quote:
Not really, I suspect that most GOP'ers are fine with the current treaty, but need to oppose it at levels which will cripple further reductions at this time. Quote:
Beirut was our "Welcome to the terrorism party", a party that we had absolutely no understanding of. Leaving U.S. Marines in Beirut to get massacred while we figured it out is political revisionist baiting. We had no business staying there at that point in time. By suggesting that doing the right thing and pulling those Marines was something the GOP would have lashed out at is really degrading your ability to articulate your understanding of the GOP. Quote:
Really? The Israeli's were against us trading arms to Iran? Good to know. Quote:
Actually, I'd bet it would be easier for a Republican President to do that than a Democrat President. Quote:
That's how he got his landslide victories. Would the hardline right want that? Of course not, but again, most of the American right is center-right, not the hardline right that gets all the left-leaning press and coverage in the liberal blogosphere. Quote:
If anything the American center-right is craving a politician like Reagan to come along. We are severely hurting for popular leadership right now, there is no doubt about that. |
Quote:
And as I said, none of this is to bash Reagan. A lot of the stuff he did I agree with. He was a good President. I just find the revisionist history with him amusing when you hear people talk about how he's the bastion of conservatism. The guy was far from conservative outside of some social issues, and he even took a ton of heat from his own party for being too moderate. It's just funny that he is held on a pedestal by partisian Republicans when he did the same stuff Obama is doing. Quote:
john mccain rino amnesty - Google Search |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We've been over this. Reagan didn't really beat the Soviets. It was the rising standard of living among the average American combined with the realization of this by Warsaw Pact civilians that further exacerbated the supply/demand issue in the Soviet economic system (namely that they couldn't sustain a production level that would feed their military machine and yet also significantly raise the standard of living across their Empire), particularly in the Warsaw Pact nations, coupled with the failure of the Soviet Amry in Afghanistan (both the morale/self-identity issues that that raised, as well as more importantly the fires of ethnic self-determination and separatism that it fanned throughout the Warsaw Pact nations and the various Soviet Republics). |
Dutch: You're saying that in the eighties Reagan appealed to conservatives. I agree. My point is that the things Reagan did in the eighties wouldn't appeal to conservatives of today. I bet if you asked people about policies and didn't mention the name Reagan that a majority of conservatives would disapprove of that candidate.
|
Quote:
Well, you didn't say all abortions... |
Quote:
Any abortions. I don't think you'd find a legitimate Republican candidate today who as President would sign any bill for abortion rights. And if one of them had an attack of conscience and did an about-face on the party platform and signed one...well I think you'd see a sitting President fail to win the nomination of his party. |
Quote:
Of course not, it's not 1980. I guess we could go 'round and 'round on this, but if the best way you can find to discredit Ronald Reagan is to say his 1980 platform doesn't equate to the 2010 platform, than you got it. We don't need to beat the Soviets anymore. We don't need to sort out the Iran Hostage crisis. So yes, I would disapprove of somebody with those things in mind. |
Quote:
I just don't think you appreciate just how effective a guy like Ronald Reagan was and crossing the isle and getting everybody on board. |
Quote:
Not sure how that relates to my point about today. |
Quote:
I'm not trying to discredit Reagan. I'm saying the GOP has moved so far towards an almost religious belief in doctrine that their supposed leading light doesn't match the need for doctrinal purity. I have a lot of differences with Reagan's politics, but I think one of his strong points was the ability to go against his stated doctrinal preferences when he felt the need to do that. In today's GOP, however, that sort of practical flexibility is seen as a weakness. Do you really think six major tax increases, even coupled with major tax cuts, would fly with today's GOP? |
Quote:
Or more selectively edited media designed to discredit the admin. From Powerline: Quote:
|
ding ding ding.
JPhillips wins. |
FWIW, which may not be much, I don't disagree at all with the assertion that Reagan would be an iffy proposition at best as a GOP Presidential candidate in 2010.
On the one hand, a weak-sister like McCain did recently win a nomination, so that bodes in Reagan's favor. On the other hand, if you extrapolate what compromises he would seem likely to be willing to make onto today's issues landscape, I doubt he finishes better than 2nd in the majority of primaries. In spite of specific examples from his era that seem relevant today, I believe some extrapolation would still be necessary since the landscape is different, the world hasn't continued in a complete vacuum from then until now. We can make some educated guesses but we can't know for sure where he'd fall on a given issue without complete context. I have a sincere appreciation for some of the tremendous good Reagan did (or at least lent the bully pulpit to) but there's also area where I'd be highly critical of his decisions/positions. Certainly not ready to canonize him by any means. |
Like I said earlier, if Reagan were alive today I have no doubt he'd mold himself into a candidate that could win. He was a tremendous politician going all the way back to his first run at governor.
|
Quote:
I think Glenn Beck just had an aneurysm and Rush is on a eating binge. |
Quote:
If Ronald Reagan was in office today, the GOP would have it's opposition, but it would generally fly with him. Look at the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would those be largely ignored by the left today if it were President McCain? Hell no, it would be an endless stream of organized protests and negative media. With President Obama in charge, the left largely accepts the continuation of those wars because their guy is in office. Couple that with the fact that it will get no resistance from the opposition and it's just good politics. |
Sure that would be true if Reagan were in office, a party does tend to coalesce around their guy, but my point was that Reagan couldn't win the primary with his record. The GOP has gotten much tougher on unorthodox behavior than it was in 1980.
|
Quote:
vs. whom? There isn't anybody out there right now...the only thing a Republican leader needs right now is a little bit of non-polarizing charisma and he/she is a shoe-in for the nomination. Quote:
Right. The entire conversation is based completey on opinions and depending on where you stand politically, your opinion will match your response. Quote:
I am. Of course, seeing how Reagan is my favorite President to date, that should explain a lot. |
Quote:
If anything I think the GOP is suffering from being leaderless and the vacuum has enabled a lot of fringe elements to cast their voice when they normally shouldn't be so effective to do so. Who are the current leaders of the GOP? Sarah Palin? Michael Steele? Meh. Who won the Presidential Nomination though? The moderate. That's where the votes are and always have been. |
Quote:
To what end though? Largely rhetorical question I suppose, never mind. Quote:
Or, apparently, possibly the reverse. |
Quote:
And how's that working out? We've seen the abject failure of nominating a weak ass excuse like McCain. Further, more & more people seem to be realizing that such a hollow victory really isn't much cause for celebration. |
Quote:
I believe the failure of McCain's campaign (regarding moderate leaning voters) is directly related to one Sarah Palin. I was leaning towards voting for McCain up until he picked her to be his Vice President. She made Dan Quayle look like a genius. Practically everyone that I talked to that was on the fence like me, said pretty much the exact same thing. Yes, purely anecdotal, but, nonetheless, a rather accurate assessment in my opinion. I think McCain would have won or would have had a much better chance of winning had he not decided to run with Palin. |
Wow, never thought I'd see the day where JIMGA & JPhillips would combine to beat up on Dutch.
:popcorn: |
Quote:
Wow. Never thought I'd see the day that Powerline would defend the Obama Administration. :popcorn: :popcorn: |
Quote:
McCain + Romney + the financial meltdown of September, 2008 could have been the "lucky" combination to swing the race back to McCain. But when you have Rovian disciple Steve Schmidt managing your campaign, you're always going to err on the side of firing up the radical base, and so that's where they went with Palin. |
Quote:
I can definitely see that. Makes me wonder if many or any at all future presidential candidates will use any of the Rove decendants or if they will continue to fly in the face of past failures and not learn anything from McCain's campaign. Catering to the radical base is way too gimicky to win a presidential campaign, in my opinion, when there are so many undecided voters that you could win over by keeping the radical base where they belong...in the corner with their mouths taped shut. |
Quote:
It's funny how Dutch and you are ostensibly under the same tent. |
Quote:
But he won the nomination and will likely win his Senate reelection in part by forswearing what he supported a few years ago. From immigration to cap and trade to the bank bailout, McCain has had to distance himself from beliefs that don't fit the orthodoxy of the GOP. |
Quote:
Two points. One, the radical base is important because of volunteer time and money. Two, Bob Shrum and Mark Penn still work for Democrats and they lose everything. Once they are in the circle of trust political consultants never seem to be cast out. |
Quote:
Funny, that's a pretty good description of how I feel about the weak assed middle. I've got little respect for people who lack the courage of pretty much any conviction, nor for those who seem to seek every opportunity to consort with the enemy. If they can be used for some purpose & at no loss of principle, great, otherwise fuck 'em since they're part of the problem instead of the solution. |
Quote:
LMAO Maybe it's not that they lack conviction, but rather that they are intelligent enough to relaize that pragmatism dictates that compromise is necessary in order to get some things done (instead of getting nothing done and sticking to their convictions). Oh shit...who am I kidding. Look who I'm trying to tell that too. :lol: |
Being in the middle != without conviction
|
Quote:
I do think there is a lot of wierd hindsight happening. I seem to remember thinking regardless of who won the GOP primary, they'd get smoked by Obama simply because Dubya was so utterly hated. I think people forget that. |
Quote:
McCain/Romney was about as likely as Obama/SteveMax58 though. I agree with the premise though...maybe a McCain/Huckabee ticket accomplishes the same goal. |
Quote:
Nah, cuz Huckabee doesn't project the same sense of fiscal knowledge that Romney does. |
Quote:
Yeah, but neither does Obama or Biden. Huckabee could certainly have held his own (and likely better) against Biden while also not scaring the swing voters away with complete lunacy. But McCain's 2nd biggest mistake (next to Palin) IMO was supporting the bank bailout. Right, wrong, or indifferent...he would have been able to distance himself from Bush's policies (whereas Obama supported it) while also catering the his base's outrage. |
Quote:
Maybe my idea of radical base is different? When I think of radical base, I think of the people shooting abortion doctors and the Fred Phelps clan members or the tree huggers that chain themselves to trees or PETA and their lame organization. Besides the fact of giving so much attention to such a small group of people that don't contribute anything but divisiveness, doesn't make any sense. Why keep people around that keep losing things for you? That I really don't understand. Quote:
Extreme views do not always lead to effectual or beneficial results. Yes, there are people who have no convictions at all, but, I would not describe the middle as having no convictions. Lets face it, 90% of what both sides peddle is fluff and bull shit to get themselves re-elected and the other 10% might actually be beneficial to the country. Not choosing sides and being able to pick and choose what makes sense is the logical thing to do regardless of party is sponsoring it. |
Quote:
I have to imagine that we differ significantly on what represents "beneficial to the country" Quote:
I won't disagree. But when one side consistently does a better job of presenting logical/acceptable/preferable options then it's pretty tough not to become de facto "sided". It's kind of like my praise for Kerry's initial choices (based on some logical assumptions about the reasons behind them), I give a shit if he's a (D) if he's right then he's right. |
Quote:
But what is logical/acceptable/preferable is completely a matter of opinion. Your problem is that even when you're agreeing here you're still being pig-headed and saying "sure I agree it makes sense to choose based on the issues. but i only find republican ideas acceptable/logical so i'm only going to choose from that universe." You refuse to even consider ideas unless they come from the same side of the aisle that you're on and are completely ideologically pure/without any compromise in them. Even as you pay lip-service to the idea of deciding based on the individual issues, in the next sentence you go right back to being partisan. Not that that really surprises me at all at this point. Contrast that with me. We've gone over this before so I won't rehash it all, but I'm actually fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I just tend to vote with an eye towards social issues rather than fiscal issues because neither party exactly has a shining record when it comes to fiscal responsibility these days. But if there was a socially "left-center" Republican who was fiscally conservative?? I'd vote for him. Sure I would. |
Quote:
Or often as not a matter of right/wrong, which has a lot less flexibility. Quote:
You're getting the process backwards though. There's no aspect of " i only find republican ideas acceptable" for me, there's simply what I find acceptable happens to coincide with where the GOP ends up. If that ceases to be (or on the occasions where they're just flat wrong) then fuck them too. The only loyalty I have to the (R) extends as far as it suits my desires (or presents a clearly preferrable alternative between bad choices) when that isn't the case then they can go hang afaic. Phrased differently (because the above seems pretty wordy), they aren't right because they're R's, they're right because (or when) they agree with me. It's awfully rare now that I see the D's (nationally, as a group) take a position I agree with, but how is that my fault? If they did, I'd happily back 'em. Remember, I was a (D) for a decent portion of my voting life but as many former D's point out, I haven't changed nearly as much as they have. Quote:
And you could have him, because if forced to choose, I'd much rather have the social issues be handled correctly than the fiscal ones, that's not even a point that gives me the slightest hesitation. It's just that I haven't entirely abandoned all hope of getting both right. Therein lies the often (increasingly?) uneasy alliance that exists within the GOP as we know it today. |
Quote:
They'd probably have been smoked by Clinton was well. So I'm glad Obama won that race at least. |
Quote:
True, but by mid-2008, McCain was shockingly in the race, even with Palin. (At least, I was shocked) |
Quote:
I didn't mean to suggest that if McCain had picked Romney instead of Palin he, for certain, would have won the election. I was just saying that given what happened in September, 2008, if McCain had picked Romney a few weeks earlier, they might have had more of a chance than McCain/Palin did in November. Of course, by that point it was too late: McCain had already picked Palin. Plus, given the common wisdom you reference from over the summer, Romney may not have wanted to hitch himself to a likely losing campaign anyway. Quote:
True, thus my point about Schmidt being a Rove disciple. Selecting Palin was an obvious move right out of the Rove playbook. In hindsight it's, if not ironic then of interest, that they one guy whose "experience/image" on financial matters might have helped the ticket considerably during the financial collapse was pretty much shut out from Day One in the process whereby the campaign selected a VP candidate. Of course, maybe we should doubt the Rove mantra that Presidential elections can be won by energizing the base, given that the proof of this comes from two Presidential elections against two particularly bad Democrat nominees. |
Quote:
How much worse of a nominee could the D's have found? They chose an underqualified & overmatched (to the job, not the race) fencepost turtle as it was. How worse would it have to get for the comparison to remain? I mean, my God, Obama makes Dukakis look like Solomon. |
Quote:
You (not YOU specifically) can nit pick (and we all do), but, you have to admit that strictly dogmatic beliefs or doctrines don't do a whole heck of a lot of good for the masses. I don't like taxes, but, I do like driving on streets and freeways that don't have pot holes or bridge collapses. So, there is a mutually beneficial outcome for taxes in that regard. I think it would be awesome if we got to pick where our tax dollars were spent, but, I'm holding out as much hope of that happening as seeing John Lennon live in concert. Quote:
But, that's just it, BOTH sides are consistently horrible at doing their supposed jobs. Those logical/acceptable/preferable options are more the exception than the rule, for both sides. I owe allegiance to no party, not because of some elitist voter snobbery on my part, but, because no party has even come close to earning it. My standards are pretty high when it comes to our elected officials, simply because of the power that they yield is so much and wide reaching. And your praise of Kerry makes sense, given the platform of the GOP regarding taxes and being the side that you have chosen. I'm fine with that. Whether or not I agree or disagree is completely irrelevant. What I'm not fine with is the elected GOP persons acting like he just made the most grievous of insults is absolutely ridiculous when you know that they would do the exact same thing. I don't know if any of that makes sense and I'm not trying to sway you one way or another, but, not everything isn't so absolute or black and white. What is pretty absolute though is the complete crappyness of the political talent in this country, regardless of the animal they ride. |
Quote:
I wasn't talking about the job, Jon, I was talking about the race. For the purpose of actually winning the race, Obama was a considerably better candidate than Kerry or Gore. Or, for that matter, McCain. So, Rove won two races for Bush by emphasizing energizing the base. The same strategy did not work for Rove disciple Steve Schmidt when he enacted it by helping to pick Palin for McCain. Thus, should we conclude from this that Rove's strategy is discredited because it only works against terrible Democratic campaigners, or that Rove's strategy still has merit because McCain was a terrible campaigner (or Obama was a transcendent one)? The question is important (for electoral politics, at least) because the GOP is going to have to decide exactly how far right they want to shift their party to appease/fire up their base (represented most vocally by the Tea Party at the moment) and whether, in so doing, they'll actually hurt their electoral chances. |
Quote:
Yet in spite of this you still oppose Democrats? :p |
Quote:
It's more of a shot at partisians who bash Obama for doing the same stuff Reagan did. |
Quote:
I know there is this delusion between partisians that they believe the extremes of their party is what the people want. It's not. Moderates win Presidential elections. I can't even think of the last fringe candidate to win the Presidency. |
GWB pretended to be moderate, at least..
|
Quote:
Well there's the race card that guaranteed him a block of votes, I'll give you that one. He seems to have a knack for connecting to the terminally naive, which sure doesn't hurt anyone regardless of party when it comes to getting votes. Otherwise, getting someone with no qualifications into the job actually strikes me as one of the greatest political machinery success in 200+ years. And I say that with admiration, not as criticism. His primary takedown of Hilary is something that I marvel at, although in fairness I'm not sure how much was good work from his side versus a terrible effort from her side. Still, I'll likely always be impressed by the success they had for whatever reason. |
Quote:
I really hate when someone says a politician "stole" votes. It infers a sense of entitlement. |
Quote:
Not in getting through the primaries it wasn't. Also, we were talking about his assets as a candidate, an area where his color was second only to "not being Bush". The self- loathing white guilt complex that seems to affect so many liberals seems to fall under "the race card" that I referred to. I'll admit it isn't something that gets a ton of play so the reference was likely too subtle. |
Quote:
|
Romney would have been an anchor for McCain. He ran a company that made it's living on buying companies, trimming the workforce and outsourcing jobs. That economic expertise wasn't going to help in 2008.
|
Just glad he found time to go on The View. Wish he could decide if he wants to be a celebrity or the President.
|
Quote:
Whatever. He's pathetic. |
I'm so old I remember when people used to complain about Bush Derangement Syndrome.
|
Quote:
This, my friends, is what happens when an otherwise well-meaning poster takes hyperbole too far. Now we all have to clean our brains with bleach. Let this be a lesson to you all, folks: don't let it happen to you. |
Interesting Pew Poll Results
http://congressionalconnection.natio...idates-who.php and for the DailyKos look at it (where I saw the poll results initially) Daily Kos: Sorry, tea party: Voters prefer government projects Quote:
|
With that being how the country really thinks, it's a wonder the Democrats ever lose a single election!
|
Quote:
Pork-barrel politics cuts across party lines and it's disingenuous of you to even suggest that it doesn't. |
My point, which was not disingenuous, was that of course everyone like government projects in a vacuum. The fact that they don't like to pay for them is why Republicans manage to get elected.
|
I think what people have a problem with is pork projects that the specific elected official has a vested interest in. Seems to be a conflict of interest in my opinion. However, I don't think people have a problem and have never really had a problem with elected officials bringing money into their district in general.
|
It's not just the filibuster. When there's no penalty for obstructing everything, the minority party ends up running the government off a cliff.
 |
Looks like everything was going fine until the Democrats started Borking people. ;)
|
That's ridiculous JPhillips. Wow. I had no idea it was THAT bad.
cue Jon ("You mean that good. Only way it could be better is if it was 0%.") |
Quote:
Also keep in mind Obama has purposesly assigned how many people when Congress was unable to confirm them? |
Quote:
Isn't it completely ridiculous to compare these kinds of numbers between a sitting president and former presidents? Wouldn't Obama's numbers include dozens of recent nominees? How many of that 60% can anyone definitively blame Republicans for? |
Quote:
I'm increasingly coming to the belief that the guy is clueless AND is being poorly advised. Very disappointing. |
Amazing stuff in one of the first votes to Obama's health care mandate and its insurance requirements/penalties. With 70% of the votes counted, Missouri voters have voted by a 3-to-1 margin to opt out of several of the main portions of the Health Care Act.
Missourians Rejected Obama Health-Care Reform - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City |
Quote:
Alas, nothing I've read seems to indicate this has much more weight than a straw poll, pending the outcome of the likely court battles. |
Quote:
Most of the media this evening was discussing whether the Missouri referendum would go to court or not. I was a bit surprised to hear that. What was even more telling from a political standpoint was how quiet the Democrats in Missouri were (some of whom voted for the Health Care Bill). Most privately said that they feared for their political life if they came out against this Proposition C. Given the voting results, they were correct to be apprehensive. To have a bellweather state vote so strongly against the Health Care Bill is a red flag to Obama and the majority party. |
Quote:
I think you'd be very surprised how many don't want that opportunity in this state, but I'm guessing you didn't want an actual answer to your question other than one that fits your argument. Even the Democrats in Missouri are very conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility. People in this state generally want less government intervention even if it means it doesn't ultimately provide them a benefit. I know people in other areas don't think that's possible, but it's a reality in many Midwest states. |
Quote:
Good. You all can join the "New Confederacy" with Jon and his Southern states and those of us who live in states where we pay in more in tax dollars than we receive in federal spending will finally get to see a real return on our tax dollars being spent on our citizens. win win for everyone as far as i'm concerned. |
Quote:
Don't get so excited. Less than 15% of the population voted and there was almost no campaign against it because eventually this will be decided in the courts. Missouri may have a majority opposed to a mandate, but this vote doesn't mean 75% of Missouri is against the ACA. I'm so old I remember when the insurance mandate was a Republican idea. |
Quote:
75% of the voters voted for the Proposition. You can spin it however you want it, but 100% of the voters had the opportunity to come out and vote. There was no campaign against it because anyone who opposed it knew it would be political suicide in this state. That may not be the case if a similar proposition came up in your home state, but it definitely is here. Obama and Democrat are four-letter words in this state right now no matter what you'd like to spin it as. That's a fact and it doesn't have any relation to party or race. |
Quote:
Actually it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Your opinion. |
Quote:
There's plenty of special interest money that could have campaigned against the proposition if they felt like it was important. The mandate is going to be decided in the courts and these symbolic propositions don't matter. If the mandate is deemed unconstitutional the whole ACA falls apart, so I can assure you there would be plenty of campaigning if these propositions really mattered. |
Quote:
Well, it is a fact that only 34% of MO residents approve of Obama's work. MO Sen: Blunt Takes 6-Point*Lead - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com |
Quote:
Real Clear Politics? What's their house bias against (D)'s again? I don't recall, but I know they're hardly viewed as an impartial pollster. And that's without even looking at the poll you linked. |
I so rarely get to type this, but MBBF is right. Y'all forget that Missouri voted for McCain in 2008. And the President is less popular nationally than he was then, so it would make sense that Missouri is stridently anti-Obama right now. So, some straw poll comes out that lets people stick a thumb in the President's eye? What do you think will happen? I'm surprised that 25% of the people motivated enough to vote supported the President's reforms.
If we had a Presidental election today, I doubt that Missouri would even be contested by the parties. |
I don't doubt there's majority disapproval of the mandate, but there's no way it's at 75% of the population. Even with Obama's 34% you'd have to believe a third of those who support Obama want the mandate repealed.
I doubt you could get 75% of the population of Missouri to agree on anything, even whether or not they live in Missouri. |
Quote:
I wish we could put a (D) or a (R) next to every link we posted here. That would save us all a lot of uneccessary confusion. |
Quote:
and consternation. |
It's certainly easy to always be right when you discount any evidence to the contrary.
|
Quote:
This part of your comment has to be the most surprising part, but your exactly right. Missouri has only picked the loser in 2 elections since 1900 (one being the last election as you correctly note, though it was only 3,000 votes difference). If Obama and his party are in this much trouble in a state like Missouri, it doesn't bode well for either of them. Just as an example, my House Rep is Ike Skeleton, who is a helluva good guy and a Democrat who I've voted for every election. He's having to spend in this election alone copious amount of money on his campaign, which is something he's never had to do before. Granted, he's getting up there in years, but to see him have to work this hard to get elected is shocking. |
Quote:
Who's discounting it? I'm just saying you have to take into account the various biases. |
Quote:
Well, I think that the Dems will lose the House and barely keep the Senate, so they are in trouble by any definition of the term. But I don't really see Missouri as symbolic of that. It swung red in an election where the President got 53% of the popular vote. Missouri has gone from a national swing state to a GOP stronghold. But that seems to have much more to do with Missouri than it does with the national mood. Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia seem to be the new national swing states. (IMHO, North Carolina and Indiana are still only going to go blue in Democratic blowout elections). |
Quote:
So how many percentage points would you in your wisdom discount the RCP poll? Taking their bias into account, of course. |
Quote:
I think the central to midwest portion of the US is really pissed off. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.