The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Sure, it was a horribly run campaign. She ran it like she was Kennedy himself, not needing to meet people or introduce herself. But, still, you're comparing apples to oranges. Sure it was 1994 with a similar political climate, but to say that Kennedy won because of a good campaign instead of a bad one does not come out of this. There won't be a 32-year senator running for re-election next time either.

I hope that this is a wake-up call to the Dems. There have been a lot of people put up for election recently who were either prime Peter-Principle candidates or were simply not ready to be thrust into the positions they were. Brown beat her because she was a horrible candidate.

The whole Schilling comment is perfect to describe her problem. She tried to be more than she was. Under the full context of the conversation, she was commenting on how she didn't think it was right for Brown to have Rudy Guilliani stumping in Boston for him, considering he's a Yankee fan. She should have then admitted to "not being a huge sports fan & said that being more concerned with the problems of the state than the score of a game, so long as Boston wins. Oh, and if he pals around with Yankee fans, birds of a feather..." She'd have come off better & might be a new Senator.

She's only one of several weak Democrat candidates. They better wise up. As they have just found out, showing up sporadically & shooting yourself in the ass doesn't win many elections.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So if there's a parallel to 1993/4 here, does that mean big wins for the Republicans in 2010 and then Obama getting blown a few years later?

I think the better parallel is to 1982, a big year for the Dems as Reagan was still saddled with the economic mess left by his predecessor.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Unless he's trying to run for national office.He actually does have a base (nobody nationally is picking up on it, but he won this by destroying Coakley on the South Shore while everywhere else fell as expected - Live Massachusetts Election Results - NYTimes.com ) but if the Dems had run even a competent politician, or had there not been 3 men who split the vote in the primary and Coakley won by default because of the votes she garnered as the only woman, he still would have lost. Even the exit polls are showing that Coakley won when she was campaigning, even the last week when all her gaffes were occurring and negatives were being trumped up. Basically, the only way that Scott Brown wins in 2012 is if jobs haven't recovered and he rides a national wave of anti-Democrat sentiment that puts the GOP back in the majority in the Senate. Mitt Romney and Bill Weld were popular statewide figures and neither came close in their Senate races against a normal Democratic campaign - Romney even lost by close to 20 points in 1994.

The Romney/Kennedy campaign was fascinating to watch. Romney should have been able to beat Kennedy at his low ebb, but shockingly Kennedy attacked from the right, calling Romney soft on crime. Romney went from a lead to a blowout in about six weeks because he couldn't find an answer to Kennedy's attacks.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

One interpretation from a libertarian-centric op-ed (our local paper)

The big pieces in HCR, especially the Senate version, all fit together like a puzzle. If you want to eliminate pre-existing condition discrimination and spending caps the only way insurance companies can survive is with an insurance mandate. Since there are people who can't afford insurance on their own, some level of subsidies have to be provided, which means revenue has to be created to pay for them.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It was both about Coakley and Obama. Coakley did nothing to get the liberals out. No one was enthusiastic, not even with the stakes being what they are. Independents and Republicans, however, were as enthusiastic in this state as I have ever seen. It was really a perfect storm.

And I totally buy that this feeling will continue into the midterm elections nationwide. There IS a lot of anger out there at the government, and you cannot ever underestimate the Democrats' ability to shoot themselves in the foot.

Stewart was great on this on Monday, by the way:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Smart man here. The Democrats need to regroup and restore some feeling that they've even listening to their constituents at this point. Stopping all health care legislation until he's seated would show that they're not trying to force anything through solely because they're about to lose their supermajority.

On to Plan C - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

Yes, because if they wait and go back to the table this time the GOP Lucy will let them kick the bipartisan football.

[JPhillips]

This is good from Talking Points Memo:

The central problem the president is laboring under is the fact that the economy remains in a shambles. And unemployment remains at a toxic 10%. Beyond that though the Democrats are suffering because they have shown voters an image of fecklessness and inability to deliver results at a moment of great public anxiety and suffering. Big changes provoke great anxiety, especially in such a divided society. But Democrats are not just having dealing with the ideological divisions in the country -- which is what the Tea Party movement is about. They're also losing a big swathe of the population that is losing faith that the Democrats can govern, that they can even deliver on the reforms and policies they say are necessary for the national good. As I wrote earlier, this is about meta-politics. If the Democrats, either from the left or the right, walk away from reform, they will get slaughtered in November. They'll get it from the people who want reform, from the people who never wanted reform and from sensible people all over who just think they can't get anything done.

What the Democrats -- and a lot of this is on the White House -- have done is get so deep into the inside game of legislative maneuvering, this and that 'gang' of senators and a lot of other nonsense that they've let themselves out of sync with the public mood and the people's needs.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think the better parallel is to 1982, a big year for the Dems as Reagan was still saddled with the economic mess left by his predecessor.

Thinking that this is not about the Democrats' agenda and is only because of what Obama was saddled with is whistling past the graveyard.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The big pieces in HCR, especially the Senate version, all fit together like a puzzle. If you want to eliminate pre-existing condition discrimination and spending caps the only way insurance companies can survive is with an insurance mandate. Since there are people who can't afford insurance on their own, some level of subsidies have to be provided, which means revenue has to be created to pay for them.

We already pay for it though. When an uninsured person ends up at the hospital, it's being tacked on to our bills.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Why are you saying 'smart'...just a little while ago you were saying they should shove it through? Not trying to talk about the rest of your spin but I'd think you wouldve picked a different word considering your rhetoric from a week ago (pre-mass election).

And of course, you've misrepresented my original point. I shouldn't be surprised.

My original point as Mustang so aptly summarized was that the Democrats needed to 'shit or get off the pot' in regards to health care. It was a point that several of the more liberal posters agreed with at the time. Yesterday, my point was brought into even better focus when reading SirFozzie's posts regarding his frustration that nothing had been finalized and now the Democrats and their HC reform bill were going to the Congressional bill graveyard.

I certainly appreciate your anger and frustration given the situation, but the fact is that my analysis which you attempted to paint as a contradictory statement was actually spot-on in pointing out the real need for Democrats to start working together with members of their own party to get resolution before it was too late. They didn't do so and now they have put themselves in an extremely tough position with declining public support on multiple fronts.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Thinking that this is not about the Democrats' agenda and is only because of what Obama was saddled with is whistling past the graveyard.

Agreed. It's exactly why I said that Senator Webb's earlier comments were the words of a smart man. There's a time to defend the party line and a time to realize that defending that party line would cause you to miss the clear and present threat to your agenda and your political party. Democrats have to change their approach or they're going to get destroyed in November.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Feedback from some of the voters presents a clear picture of the discontent..........

Massachusetts Voters in their Own Words… | TQIA - Turning Questions Into Answers

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. It's exactly why I said that Senator Webb's earlier comments were the words of a smart man. There's a time to defend the party line and a time to realize that defending that party line would cause you to miss the clear and present threat to your agenda and your political party. Democrats have to change their approach or they're going to get destroyed in November.

Yes, because "I voted against it after I voted for it" is a powerful political message.

People hate Democrats when they don't get anything done. The only hope of salvation is passing the Senate bill, defending the popular aspects and then moving to box in Republicans on small popular issues ala Clinton.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, because "I voted against it after I voted for it" is a powerful political message.

People hate Democrats when they don't get anything done. The only hope of salvation is passing the Senate bill, defending the popular aspects and then moving to box in Republicans on small popular issues ala Clinton.

You say salvation. Most say political suicide without solving the problem at hand.

[JPhillips]

Who votes for a party that spends a year saying "This is important", but when there's a small setback panics and gives up? That's what independents want? People value conviction and resolve.

If the GOP had the White House, the House and 59 Senate votes they'd abolish the top marginal rate, teach the value of enhanced interrogation in middle school and rename California "ReaganFreedomLand".

Political power is fleeting. Get some shit done, stand behind it and let the chips fall where they may. If moderates want a different legislative agenda start writing and proposing legislation and stop bitching about your own uselessness.

[Alan T]

As a Massachusetts moderate independant that has voted Democrat in each senate election in the 10 years that I have lived here, Scott Brown's win tells everyone much more about Martha Coakley then any referendum on health care or Obama or the current senate as a whole.

I'm not a fan of the current health care legislation that has been tossed around the past few months, but in Massachusetts it really isn't a big concern as we already have state mandated health care (really the way that I feel health care should be handled instead of nationally anyways). So the big issue for us really is the jobs and economy right now.

That said, I don't think that is why Brown won. I think he won because Coakley ran perhaps one of the worst, least inspired, most assuming campaigns that I have ever seen. If there was a new presidential election tomorrow, I would bet Obama would win Massachusetts easily as always.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Who votes for a party that spends a year saying "This is important", but when there's a small setback panics and gives up? That's what independents want? People value conviction and resolve.

If the GOP had the White House, the House and 59 Senate votes they'd abolish the top marginal rate, teach the value of enhanced interrogation in middle school and rename California "ReaganFreedomLand".

Political power is fleeting. Get some shit done, stand behind it and let the chips fall where they may. If moderates want a different legislative agenda start writing and proposing legislation and stop bitching about your own uselessness.

Except I don't think health care is what the people voted for.

Three reasons I think people voted for Obama:
1) Hated Bush and the atmosphere in DC, wanted a new face and new ideas (don't think you will ever solve this, not even Obama)
2) Hated the war in Iraq, wanted to pull the troops out of the Middle East. (which isn't happening)
3) Wanted ideas like gay rights and universal health care (Obama isn't even close)

While a lot of people can rightfully get upset about #3, my guess is most of his votes were for 1 & 2 and nobody voted for that junk Senate bill that they are trying to cram through. Hence the elections that have happened the last few months and if things don't change the elections this fall.

[JPhillips]

I haven't heard a single good explanation how abandoning a year's worth of work that has been sold to the public as a priority will benefit the Dems in November.

Passing healthcare may not help win elections, but abandoning it will certainly hurt.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And of course, you've misrepresented my original point. I shouldn't be surprised.

My original point as Mustang so aptly summarized was that the Democrats needed to 'shit or get off the pot' in regards to health care. It was a point that several of the more liberal posters agreed with at the time. Yesterday, my point was brought into even better focus when reading SirFozzie's posts regarding his frustration that nothing had been finalized and now the Democrats and their HC reform bill were going to the Congressional bill graveyard.

I certainly appreciate your anger and frustration given the situation, but the fact is that my analysis which you attempted to paint as a contradictory statement was actually spot-on in pointing out the real need for Democrats to start working together with members of their own party to get resolution before it was too late. They didn't do so and now they have put themselves in an extremely tough position with declining public support on multiple fronts.

And you misinterpreted my emotions. Im not surprised.

Im the one who wants them to work together on this stuff. You are not. Brown winning might be the best thing to happen to a guy like me IF, and only if, the GOP will start true discussions on how to make this country better since theyve admitted that things are broken as they are. I look forward to their bills and support of, well, anything.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Alan T

As a Massachusetts moderate independant that has voted Democrat in each senate election in the 10 years that I have lived here, Scott Brown's win tells everyone much more about Martha Coakley then any referendum on health care or Obama or the current senate as a whole.

I'm not a fan of the current health care legislation that has been tossed around the past few months, but in Massachusetts it really isn't a big concern as we already have state mandated health care (really the way that I feel health care should be handled instead of nationally anyways). So the big issue for us really is the jobs and economy right now.

That said, I don't think that is why Brown won. I think he won because Coakley ran perhaps one of the worst, least inspired, most assuming campaigns that I have ever seen. If there was a new presidential election tomorrow, I would bet Obama would win Massachusetts easily as always.

I was watching the ABC World News Tonight show last night and they had some reactions from people coming out of the poll. There was a couple in their 60s that came out and both said that they were going to vote for Coakley as of a couple of weeks ago, but when the Kennedy family got involved, they said 'the Kennedy's are going to tell us how to vote' and switched to Brown. If the Kennedy family had not got involved, they both said they'd be voting for Coakley.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Alan T

As a Massachusetts moderate independant that has voted Democrat in each senate election in the 10 years that I have lived here, Scott Brown's win tells everyone much more about Martha Coakley then any referendum on health care or Obama or the current senate as a whole.

I'm not a fan of the current health care legislation that has been tossed around the past few months, but in Massachusetts it really isn't a big concern as we already have state mandated health care (really the way that I feel health care should be handled instead of nationally anyways). So the big issue for us really is the jobs and economy right now.

That said, I don't think that is why Brown won. I think he won because Coakley ran perhaps one of the worst, least inspired, most assuming campaigns that I have ever seen. If there was a new presidential election tomorrow, I would bet Obama would win Massachusetts easily as always.

True. When it comes to elections, Obama doesn't fuck around.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the GOP will start true discussions on how to make this country better since theyve admitted that things are broken as they are. I look forward to their bills and support of, well, anything.

Y'know, "broken" does not automatically mean increased government involvement to fix.

[Arles]

I'm not sure what benefits Obama at this point. All people care about right now are the economy, jobs and trying to get out of this "funk". Universal health care is nice in theory to people, but a lot of people have health care - but are worried about losing their job or getting wage freezes/fewer hours. So, while it is something I think many people wanted when he was elected, the focus of the public has shifted to just keeping their job at their current pay rate.

For a football parallel, it's like Team Obama came out knowing that their opponent had their top CB hurt and no pass rush. So, they setup a gameplan to throw downfield on things like health care, cap-n-trade and other initiatives. However, at halftime, we see the backup CB is actually Darrelle Revis and the opponents are blitzing like crazy and sacking the QB.

He needs to change up the gameplan to focus more on getting confidence in the economy - which isn't an easy thing. IMO, things will get better in the next 2 years, but I'm not sure that will help this fall.

Obama could reduce emissions/carbon by 30%, redo health care to provide coverage for 90+% of people and significantly improve public education over the next 6 months - yet no one will care if we're at 10+% unemployment and there's uncertainty over the economy. Improvements there are the only way people will feel better about Obama and the democrats in general - and it won't be easy.

[flere-imsaho]

Two thoughts on the MA-Sen election:

One: If there is a trend to be found here, it is as Cam suggested much earlier in relation to GOP wins in Virginia & New Jersey: good Republican candidates who run on competency/common sense/check book issues defeat Democratic candidates who run lousy campaigns. This is a wake-up call (and it's a bit sad that it's needed) to Democratic candidates that they actually need to campaign, and they need to address issues that matter to their constituents (i.e. jobs, the economy). A great example will be whomever wins the Democratic primary in Illinois for Obama's old Senate seat (Burriss is not running for re-election) and goes up against marketed-moderate Republican Mark Kirk. If that candidate runs a campaign like Coakley did, they'll lose to Kirk, regardless of how Blue Illinois is or how much Obama will campaign for them.

Two: If every GOP candidate in the 2010 midterms is as good and as moderate as Scott Brown, then the Democrats are in real trouble (more than they are already). But given the growing influence of the Tea Party in GOP politics, I'd say that's somewhat unlikely.

[JPhillips]

Arles: I think you're right about the economy. If there's no uptick in employment 2010 will be brutal regardless of what congress does. But let me throw out another analogy. The Dems have already gone all in on HCR, folding now before drawing the last card makes no sense at all.

Killing HCR now won't win any votes in tough districts and it will kill the enthusiasm of the base. I happen to think it's good policy, but just at a tactical level Dems have to get this passed or they'll rightly be killed for being ineffective crybabies.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not sure what benefits Obama at this point. All people care about right now are the economy, jobs and trying to get out of this "funk". Universal health care is nice in theory to people, but a lot of people have health care - but are worried about losing their job or getting wage freezes/fewer hours. So, while it is something I think many people wanted when he was elected, the focus of the public has shifted to just keeping their job at their current pay rate.

I think this is a great point. We're in a far worse situation, economically, than 1992, when both Clinton & Perot ran on platforms that focused almost exclusively on the economy. If the Democrats want to stave off losses in 2010, they need to convince people they're working to solve this (and convince people that the GOP aren't). And if Obama wants to win in 2012 he needs to convince people there's a turnaround afoot (if such a turnaround isn't obvious, like it was in 1996). Pretty much everything else is window-dressing, electorally.

[Arles]

Honestly, it's pretty unfair to Obama what is going on. When he was elected, the landscape was significantly different. It's even worse than 9-11 and Bush in that atleast Bush had an initial unified front on Afghanistan and some leeway. Obama is dealing with a brutal economic situation and half the country basically wants him to fail (or atleast isn't giving him the benefit of the doubt).

It's why I would never want to be president. He's going to be judged by things he has very little control of over the next 6-9 months.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think this is a great point. We're in a far worse situation, economically, than 1992, when both Clinton & Perot ran on platforms that focused almost exclusively on the economy. If the Democrats want to stave off losses in 2010, they need to convince people they're working to solve this (and convince people that the GOP aren't). And if Obama wants to win in 2012 he needs to convince people there's a turnaround afoot (if such a turnaround isn't obvious, like it was in 1996). Pretty much everything else is window-dressing, electorally.

If there isn't a real turnaround by 2012 there's no messaging that can win the election.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Killing HCR now won't win any votes in tough districts and it will kill the enthusiasm of the base. I happen to think it's good policy, but just at a tactical level Dems have to get this passed or they'll rightly be killed for being ineffective crybabies.

Yep. I'll note that from the 2002 elections to the 2006 elections the GOP controlled Congress with much smaller margins than the Democrats do now, and still got a lot of their stuff done and it is this, amongst other factors, which contributes to disillusionment amongst Democratic voters.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If there isn't a real turnaround by 2012 there's no messaging that can win the election.

True. In that case the best Obama can hope for is that the GOP nominates a complete loser as its candidate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The Dems have already gone all in on HCR, folding now before drawing the last card makes no sense at all.

Ah, pot odds. A good way to justify pursuing a losing proposition.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

True. In that case the best Obama can hope for is that the GOP nominates a complete loser as its candidate.

Isn't that how the last three elections have been won?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Isn't that how the last three elections have been won?

Exactly. Which is why the people predicting doom for Obama shouldn't count their chickens before they hatch.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Sure, it was a horribly run campaign. She ran it like she was Kennedy himself, not needing to meet people or introduce herself. But, still, you're comparing apples to oranges. Sure it was 1994 with a similar political climate, but to say that Kennedy won because of a good campaign instead of a bad one does not come out of this. There won't be a 32-year senator running for re-election next time either.

The difference is that even Kennedy himself didn't take teh election for granted. He worked for every vote, held events, and worked to win.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Thinking that this is not about the Democrats' agenda and is only because of what Obama was saddled with is whistling past the graveyard.

I simply said it was a better parallel, not that it was the only reason. And let's not forget Clinton abandoned his agenda before getting hammered in the 1994 midterms.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Ah, pot odds. A good way to justify pursuing a losing proposition.

Okay. Explain to me how abandoning a bill they've already voted for and spent a year telling the public was essential will benefit them in November.

edit: And since you were earlier using the stock market as a measure, what does it mean that the Dow is down around 200 today? I presume investors are panicking because of the potential for GOP obstruction.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Exactly. Which is why the people predicting doom for Obama shouldn't count their chickens before they hatch.

No question about it. I totally agree, which is why I pointed it out.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Okay. Explain to me how abandoning a bill they've already voted for and spent a year telling the public was essential will benefit them in November.

Because a large majority of the public was already telling them months ago that it wasn't essential. No one bought it. Cutting their losses at least shows they've figured out what the American public has been saying for months, which is much better than the other alternative.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And since you were earlier using the stock market as a measure, what does it mean that the Dow is down around 200 today? I presume investors are panicking because of the potential for GOP obstruction.

I wasn't using it as a measure. I was pointing out the rise in prices yesterday. The Dow as a daily measure of events is horribly overrated. If anything, it shows how the professionals can easily profit off the emotions of idiots.

[Flasch186]

oh, and only to show how silly the Brown Stock Market Rally comment was by the pundits lets take a look see at the market today...

well there you go. Nice call Horace.

[SportsDino]

The partisanship is stiffling in here...

Anyway, who cares if they all pinned their trailers to the HCR bill... at some point I wish our supposed leaders would actually stand up and do the right thing. The right thing is killing the shit out of this insanely stupid, and in my opinion borderline evil, bill. Stop playing the pansy ass political appearances games, grow some balls (or ovaries) and make some legislation that solves a damn problem, and if the Republicans filibuster you, fuckin embarass the hell out of them with legislation that is so common sense popular that to stand against it would be digging your own grave in the midterm elections.

Screw this opinion of 'stick with your guns' or 'we need a supermajority'... these damn wussy cover your ass politics are why the economy stays on the edge of depression, we are in two wars we don't need to be in, and the only thing coming out of our government is selling away more of our freedoms/money/sanity to toady up to corporate who will give them cushy do nothing jobs after they are voted out.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

The partisanship is stiffling in here...

Anyway, who cares if they all pinned their trailers to the HCR bill... at some point I wish our supposed leaders would actually stand up and do the right thing. The right thing is killing the shit out of this insanely stupid, and in my opinion borderline evil, bill. Stop playing the pansy ass political appearances games, grow some balls (or ovaries) and make some legislation that solves a damn problem, and if the Republicans filibuster you, fuckin embarass the hell out of them with legislation that is so common sense popular that to stand against it would be digging your own grave in the midterm elections.

Screw this opinion of 'stick with your guns' or 'we need a supermajority'... these damn wussy cover your ass politics are why the economy stays on the edge of depression, we are in two wars we don't need to be in, and the only thing coming out of our government is selling away more of our freedoms/money/sanity to toady up to corporate who will give them cushy do nothing jobs after they are voted out.

And how many months have people in this very thread and in other forums of dicussion been saying that the Democrats should do exactly that? There's nothing partisan at all when you're preaching to the choir. As you note, that's common sense and the Democrat leadership is the only one who apparantly didn't get the message.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Article discussing how the early seeds for this mess were planted by the administration and predicted by liberal bloggers months ago..........

Peter Daou: Liberal Bloggers to Obama and Dems: We Told You So

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Two: If every GOP candidate in the 2010 midterms is as good and as moderate as Scott Brown, then the Democrats are in real trouble (more than they are already). But given the growing influence of the Tea Party in GOP politics, I'd say that's somewhat unlikely.

Honest question since I've stopped paying attention as closely as I used to. What does the Tea Party stand for other than lower taxes and less government? On that point they would seem to have popular sentiment behind them (not on how far they go, but on the general idea). How is their increased influence at the expense of the "religious right" going to result in fewer moderate candidates? Perhaps it was because it was Massachusetts or because national people weren't interested or involved until late, but other than Coakley trying to make the hospital rape slander stick social positions weren't even mentioned. It was jobs, government spending, and "elitism" from out of touch politicians - which (regardless whether you think their ideas are correct for solving them) would seem to be the Tea Party's talking points.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Honest question since I've stopped paying attention as closely as I used to. What does the Tea Party stand for other than lower taxes and less government? On that point they would seem to have popular sentiment behind them (not on how far they go, but on the general idea). How is their increased influence at the expense of the "religious right" going to result in fewer moderate candidates? Perhaps it was because it was Massachusetts or because national people weren't interested or involved until late, but other than Coakley trying to make the hospital rape slander stick social positions weren't even mentioned. It was jobs, government spending, and "elitism" from out of touch politicians - which (regardless whether you think their ideas are correct for solving them) would seem to be the Tea Party's talking points.

I think that depends on what you mean by "Tea Party".

If you're referring to the one that ran Charles Jay for President last election, their platform is a single sentence

The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.

Thing is, not every "tea party" (small letters) protest was organized by the same group. Actually I think in at least one case there's been a lawsuit over the rights to the name at the state level. And when you get to the individual groups then it seems extremely wide-ranging as to what constitutes a platform or even what their key issues/talking points are. I mean, you've got your flat taxers, your secessionists, your anti-immagrationists, anti-bailouters, and so on & so on.

To be honest, it kinds of reminds me of the wide variance in what gets tagged with the libertarian label. In Georgia, for example, for years they were basically known for having NORML members who didn't have much to talk about beyond that and on the other hand you had the Neil Boort'z libertarians that cropped up occasionally & over the past few years more frequently (but then that's kind of co-opted at times by the flat-taxers).

[miked]

Problem is, I believe a lot of tea partiers are Republican break-offs and have quite conservative personal views...meaning they want less government unless it has to do with marriage, butt sex, gay adoption, abortion, etc. I mean, aren't we all for less government and less spending?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And how many months have people in this very thread and in other forums of dicussion been saying that the Democrats should do exactly that? There's nothing partisan at all when you're preaching to the choir. As you note, that's common sense and the Democrat leadership is the only one who apparantly didn't get the message.

I agree. I personally think the Democrats should have and should go much smaller and incremently change health care. This "one big bill" is just never going to pass the muster of the people.

So my suggestion for them is to create a bill with two things in it. Pre-existing conditions and portability. Nothing else. Say these are two things we want to fix with the health care system. Then dare the Republicans to vote against it.

Those issues are probably two of the ones that are actually popular with the public. I bet you they could have gotten this particular thing passed last year and Obama would have had a feather in his cap to say "hey, we did change something that is a big deal and we'll work on changing more". The all-or-nothing approach is just too bloated and too scummy to pass the public's sniff test.

[RainMaker]

The tea party thing was never a Republican thing when it started. It was Ron Paul supporters. A group of people I would never consider interested in politics before but interested with this guy. The Republican Party lambasted Paul and his supporters relentlessly during the primaries.

After losing the election, Republicans tried to tie themselves into that and have effectively taken it over and destroyed that original message they had. It used to be about Ron Paul and small government and now it's just anti-Obama people giving themselves a label. The people claiming to be tea party people now are not for small government (despite what they say) and are just Republicans hijacking someone else's succesful vehicle and destroying what it was originally intended to stand for.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree. I personally think the Democrats should have and should go much smaller and incremently change health care. This "one big bill" is just never going to pass the muster of the people.

So my suggestion for them is to create a bill with two things in it. Pre-existing conditions and portability. Nothing else. Say these are two things we want to fix with the health care system. Then dare the Republicans to vote against it.

Those issues are probably two of the ones that are actually popular with the public. I bet you they could have gotten this particular thing passed last year and Obama would have had a feather in his cap to say "hey, we did change something that is a big deal and we'll work on changing more". The all-or-nothing approach is just too bloated and too scummy to pass the public's sniff test.

You can't do pre-existing conditions without a mandate and you can't do a mandate without subsidies. Eliminating pre-existing conditions without a mandate kills the insurance industry.

Some of this isn't possible piecemeal.

[JPhillips]

Here's a good take on the fecklessness of the Dems in Congress from a Senate staffer posted at Talking Points Memo:

This is my life and I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November. History shows we're likely to choose the latter.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can't do pre-existing conditions without a mandate and you can't do a mandate without subsidies. Eliminating pre-existing conditions without a mandate kills the insurance industry.

Some of this isn't possible piecemeal.

There is already a mandate more or less when it comes to group health insurance policies which make up over 80% of the health insurance industry. This would just be for the rest. It would increase the price of private plans and put them more in line with group. The insurance companies would survive just as they have with other laws mandating coverage on group plans.

The insurance company will not be killed, it will just adapt. They had their chance to work with government on a plan that would help cover more people and chose to send out bullshit statements about death camps to scare people. You fuck with the guy in the room with the big stick, you get whacked.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is already a mandate more or less when it comes to group health insurance policies which make up over 80% of the health insurance industry. This would just be for the rest. It would increase the price of private plans and put them more in line with group. The insurance companies would survive just as they have with other laws mandating coverage on group plans.

The insurance company will not be killed, it will just adapt. They had their chance to work with government on a plan that would help cover more people and chose to send out bullshit statements about death camps to scare people. You fuck with the guy in the room with the big stick, you get whacked.

If there's no pre-existing condition exclusion I know I'd drop my work insurance and reinstate it or private coverage if I got sick. Even if I don't get the money the company would have spent on the plan I'd still save about 350$ a month on my co-pay. What would stop millions from doing the same thing without a mandate?