We're seeing this on the other side of KC in Kansas already. There's a couple of 'blue dog Democrats' in conservative districts that are both likely to lose in 2010 due to their support of the more liberal policies that Obama and Congress proposed.

Well, I know a quote by Obama saying he would be "happy to look at" in some random paper's blog is definitely news.

Then again, I forgot that it was Monday morning so it was time for some MBBF fake hand wringing and propaganda push. "Oh noes, the President is doing X. I hope he won't get in trouble for Y" and here it is, right on schedule.

SI

I don't know if this is true, but I get the feeling that the total exposure isn't greater, but that this admin has decided to use surrogates far less and rely on the President more. It doesn't seem like I'm seeing the level of adviser interviews as is normally common, but obviously we're seeing the President a lot more. I get the over exposure issue, although I don't think there are any real consequences, but since I don't see much merit in giving advisers air time, I'd rather it at least come from the guy theoretically making the policy decisions.

Now as to whether people understand healthcare reform, of course there's a problem. If people really understood the legislation there wouldn't be so many people believing in death panels, euthanizing veterans, and British style healthcare. The current anger at all of the above seems pretty clear proof that there are a lot of misconceptions out there.

The Hill is a random paper? Interesting. I consider it a relatively non-bias source for politics.

ISid: But arguing that the policy is too liberal only exacerbates their problems. Some of these Reps won because of Obama's popularity, so taking issue with his policies and lowering his popularity is self-defeating. If the district would prefer a counter to Obama, the Dem, in a general sense, is unlikely to be their choice regardless of his vote on any issue.

I don't think 2010 will be a wave election as the only thing people dislike more than Dems are Repubs. Dems will lose seats in the House, especially in those districts that had increased turnout of Dem voters due to Obama that won't have those numbers in an off-year election. I don't think healthcare makes a difference if it passes as none of it will have gone into effect by next November. The real danger is continued job losses. If unemployment doesn't flatten or tick downwards by next summer that could change things significantly towards the GOP.

That's interesting- I've been gone a year now, but last I checked there was only one Kansas Democrat* in the House. As for Dennis Moore situation, I haven't seen anything that really endangers a 6-term incumbent's advantage. The advantage to being an incumbent is so big and takes so much to overcome, particularly for someone so long entrenched. That said, it's still early and a lot can happen between now and next year.

*Funny story- so after 2002, the overwhelmingly Republican state redistricted Lawrence (aka midwest college town, aka blue dot in the middle of a red state) to split it up in an attempt to destabilize one of Moore's solid bases. However, it backfired, as in 2006, Moore won easily and a Democrat won the newly gerrymandered 2nd district as well. Whoops.

SI

In theory, I agree that I'd rather hear it straight from the horse's mouth, but the current tactics are just overkill. There has to be some balance.


The scare tactics are just as insignificant as the Democrats and their supporters' belief that those scare tactics are the real issue here. If you ask the average citizen, they want good healthcare for themselves and don't want to pay more to cover other people while seeing no increase in their care quality. That's the real issue. The rest of it is just politics that provides political fodder.

Yes, it's a BLOG in a RANDOM PAPER (i.e. in that one paper picked up this story, not speaking specifically to The Hill) and furthermore, it said he would consider the issue, which does not signal support or dismissal or action of any sort. I think we've seen that Obama will say that about pretty much everything- "I'm open to ideas", "my door is always open", "I'll listen to anything", etc- unless you propose something politically suicidal like "Hey, we have this bill that allows child molesters to teach at schools".

Call me when a bill gets passed in Congress or ends up on his desk and then we can talk about it.

SI

For the record, there's a huge difference between tax cuts (Bush) and raising taxes(Obama proposal). You can argue whether either was prudent, but the masses will always prefer a tax cut.

I genuinely don't believe the average American voter will care if reconciliation is used. But to say that, I have to define average voter. Yes, there will be some uproar on the right from the echo chamber, but most voters can't be bothered to understand nuance going into most elections so why should this be any different. That said, midterm elections do play to the more politically savvy as turnout is lower.

SI

Yeah- for better or for worse, at the end of the day, this will be all that matters (see post above this one).

SI

ISid: There is, at best, one Republican that will vote for any healthcare reform(Snowe). It's going to be a party line vote regardless of the proposal because Republicans see defeat of healthcare reform, any healthcare reform, as in their electoral interest.

At the end of the day I don't think it's going to have to go through reconciliation as I don't think Dem Senators are stupid enough to filibuster their own President and caucus, but I certainly could be wrong. There really is no folly too great for the Dem Senate.

seriously. i'd be more upset if he said he wouldn't consider it. at least the guy is open-minded. refreshing change.

Granted, but if its a vote of 60 yays, that will make it seem far more palatable to the general voting public.

The difference with the Bush tax cuts, btw, is that tax cuts aren't exactly a new huge government undertaking. Massive tax cuts have been done before.

i think a mandate for individual coverage without an available-to-all (on an individual choice basis...make it one option in the exchange) public option (ie a "somewhat cost-controlled option" in the sense that the government isn't going to try to price-gouge anybody for profits like the private insurance companies do) is bullshit. Even with reform and oversight of the insurance companies then you're still forcing me to contribute to private enterprise's profits and pay to inflate the value of their stock price.

Absolutely true. My ideal scenario would be to leave the Senate the way it is, but to remake the House as a 500-person chamber elected by a national vote and allotted on a Proportional Representation basis. Get rid of most (all?) of the BS local projects that are laden on to bills, force parties to put together coalitions, and create a national stage for some parties aside from the usual two.

To me, the greatest barrier towards improving the efficacy of Democracy in the U.S. is the general apathy towards civics of the average voter, but a strong #2 is the complete lack of functionality present in the U.S. House.


I hope this is hyperbole, because Reagan didn't get the moniker "The Great Communicator" and, to a lesser degree "The Great Delegator" for nothing....

We've had eight years of a President who hid behind his advisers (and Vice President), who shunned the public and the press, and who doled out meaningful public appearances as if they were gold (or Iraqi WMDs), and look where all that got us. Obama's trying a different approach - trying to communicate directly with the public and put himself out there as the public face of his policies and his Administration. Maybe it won't work, and maybe it's not what people prefer, but the complaining about it seems to be just complaining for the sake of complaining.


You can't honestly claim that the media landscape in 1993 even approaches the media landscape in 2009. You also can't honestly claim to compare a media-friendly and outgoing President to one who publicly loathed the press and kept his media engagements to an absolute minimum.

You're posting numbers, MBBF, but you're not applying critical thought to them.


One wonders what you would say of FDR and his "fireside chats".

And frankly I find the claim that Clinton was substance over style to be risible.

They are? The only thing I've seen conservatives claim about JFK was his tax cuts.

Jeff Jacoby overreaches in a few ways here:

‘Kennedy’ once meant ‘tax cutter’ - The Boston Globe

In regards to your first point, this story is the lead story on The Huffington Post. That's not a paper, but it's a significant outlet of information.

As far as waiting for a passed bill to chat, this discussion thread is going to run dry in a hurry if we use that criteria given the current glacial pace of legislation with this Congress.

The National Review folks are already trying to show how Bush was a liberal.

Popular = conservative

Unpopular = liberal

It's a sad situation when a person is praised for being open minded to a terrible idea.

Business focused tax cuts are a terrible idea? I think I like the new you.

And they definitely should have, as it will likely bite back in the end.

This isn't really an issue with the Republicans at this point anyway. Until the Democrats agree on something and stop arguing with each other, there's little reading or debate to do at this point. We STILL don't truly know what health care reform even is at this point.

Bailing out an industry resembling a dinosaur who's made bad decisions is what I was talking about. Not much different than the auto industry in that regard. I feel the same about both. But a fine attempt to twist my statement by you.

Economically, he was quite unlike the conservatives of yore. Of course this backlash only started after Medicare Part D was passed by the Administration.

And I'm confident that somewhere along the way multiple people will realize that and it won't ever come to pass.

I have zero problem with the guy saying "if it gets to my desk i'll take a look at it." That's what he should say. He's not commiting to it, not saying he thinks it's a good idea. He's just saying IF it gets to his desk he'll TAKE A LOOK AT IT. That's a pretty noncommital answer. I don't have a problem with him looking at every idea...good...bad...ridiculous, if he determines that it is worth his time to take a look at it.

Why be afraid of new ideas? Sometimes you can learn the most or get the most insight from failure or poor ideas.

There is a HUGE difference between periodic national addresses (fireside, press conferences, whatever), even weekly, versus multiple talkshow appearances and near daily press conferences. We're getting an unprecedented-outside-of-an-election blitz of presidential appearances an order of magnitude greater than we've seen before. It remains to be seen if this is a good idea or not, but the reason I brought it up is that this also means there is much greater opportunity for the nutjobs to show up, so comparing what happens at his appearances to what's happened with other presidents won't make for a good comparison.

Wait a minute. Because he's had more events it makes it impossible to compare people who brought guns to people who didn't? Do you really think if Obama cuts back on his public events the rhetoric will lighten? I don't see any correlation between number of events and what people do at those events.

I think one of the main problems, so far, with the Obama Administration is that President Obama is being too reactive instead of pro-active, in trying to avoid previous Presidents' pitfalls. By which I mean, he's on TV all the time because he's trying to avoid President Bush's habit of not answering all that many questions. He's been very hands off (seemingly) on health care and letting Congress mess things up, because of the appearance that President Clinton was too hands on during his health care plan.

Yes, learn from your predecessors' mistakes, but don't swing the pendulum too far the other way!

The rhetoric has been there, but what conservative actually reduced spending? GHWB was much more fiscally prudent than Reagn or GWB, but he raised taxes, so he's a heretic.

I can't recall a President/Congress that's actually backed up a smaller government rhetoric with significant cuts in government.

Being so hands off on healthcare has definitely hurt him.

Well, if you want to be fair, President Reagan's 1986 tax bill is, IIRC, the highest tax increase in American history. It was passed to correct for the 1981 tax bill not raising as much revenue as anticipated.

Reagan/Bush also did make minor cuts in government agencies, but more than made up for it in military spending. One wonders what a President Herbert Walker Bush would have done with a peace surplus (I forget what it was actually referred to once the Cold War was over).

I do think Reagan was far more pragmatic than modern conservatives envision, not only on some tax increases, but he also jumped at negotiating with Gorbachev when he felt the time was right. I'm not a big fan, but he was far from the inflexible ideologue that many on the right have become.

TalkingPointsMemo is reporting that one of the proposed amendment for the Baucus bill includes a triggered public option. The amendment's sponsor? Olympia Snowe. I still think that's the grand compromise that will eventually get this passed.

Since I am anti-GOP right now, this will probably come off as a challenge. But, really, I just wonder. Even if Obama does not meet the hopes and predictions that people had for him, will the GOP reap the benefit of that?



I am not sure who will benefit from the Democrats stumbles, but it does not look like the GOP from here.

Maybe The Modern Whig Party ?

Or is it pretty much impossible for a third party to come into being today?

that's a pretty shocking depiction of the GOP's slide into a regional party albion...

Let's not go crazy here. The GOP still has plenty of presence in the Midwest. Obama stole a few key states, but there's still plenty of conservatives to go around. I'd vote 'No' in that poll as well because I'm not terribly happy with the GOP right now, but that doesn't mean that I'll be voting for Obama or a Democrat for senator anytime soon. I'm not too happy with either.

$425 million coming back to us from BoA.

It's like an American version of the Parti Quebecois.

Could you stop parroting Andrew Sullivan? :p

And I know you were because you made the same mistake he did, pointed out by a reader (which he also posted: The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan), that Parti Quebecois is a party in the Quebec Provincial Assembly while Bloc Quebecois is the national party that is concerned with the province of Quebec.

haha yeah I saw it on another board.

I also like the comment posted from your link:

"It is very clearly a protest, and its goal is secession from Canada. But, in contrast to the GOP, it actually votes on key laws, participates in discussion, is open to compromise, and even has proposed a series of bills which were eventually accepted as laws. Like it or not, this party has played its part in Canada legislative branch. They may want to split, but they act like any democratic party should, and play the same ball game as every other party in recent memory. And they don't hide their motivations: they know they will never be in power, and use their 50 or so deputies in a respectable manner as not to prevent the parliament from functioning.

Which may be more that can be said of the GOP at this time."

Nate Silver seems to be picking up on this idea to some degree, too: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Health Care Is Hazardous to Poll Numbers for Grassley, Other Senators

At this point, I think that the GOP needs to make sure that they take enough of a break from the negative portrayal of the Dems to have the time and energy left over to present the positive case for the GOP. Otherwise, they run a risk of getting caught up in the sweep of "throw the bums out."

There are thinkers in the party (several of them frequent this thread) who see the GOP as more than "anti-Obama/Pelosi." Those folks need some mike time.

(By way of antecdote, my brother in law is an educated moderate conservative who voted for Obama. He's one of the easy votes for the GOP to get back. As it is, he's getting more and more uncomfortable with his Obama choice as time goes on. But he's not running back to donate time, and money, and (possibly) even votes to the GOP. He's the one who sent me that link to the Modern Whigs--with a sort of "this is what I want" vibe to it. When moderate Republicans are spending their time finding third parties on the web instead of listening to the GOP, it seems like the GOP is only doing half of what it needs to do in order to get back into power.)

The problem is that the ones that do well in the Midwest like Mark Kirk are constantly bashed by people on the right.

While true; recall, once again, the 2008 Republican Presidential nominee wasn't a right wing darling like Mike Huckabee, but rather John McCain, who was and is constantly bashed by people on the right.

Another note: When you consider that the Dems control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the GOP has done an amazing job of keeping them on the defensive. The only things that the Dems have really passed were bailout measures that were necessary for the country but did not really advance the Democratic agenda vis a vis the GOP agenda.

So far, with all of their advantages, the Dems have not passed cap-and-trade, have not passed health care reform, and have not confirmed any federal judges save one.

I don't know if the GOP strategy is the best one for winning elections, but it may be the best one for controling the agenda from the extreme minority position.

is there a corresponding democratic view of this?

Which ones?

Indiana, for sure, but I don't know after that. It always matter how Midwest is defined.

Well, that's why I asked. It's tempting to say Obama "stole" all the "Midwest" states Kerry didn't get, but how many of those states have 1 or more Democratic Senators and/or a Democratic governor?

That's making an argument that the "Midwest" isn't in play for Democrats which flies in the face of recent events.

Well, that's not what I meant by 'stole'. I meant that he landed a few states that generally go to Republicans more often than not. I certainly wasn't implying that they were states that Democrats could never win.