The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Dutch]

FWIW,

I follow Rasmussen's polling.

Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I wish we would get away from a 2 party system.

Would you prefer...

A 3-party system that's popularity is divided equally --> 33%/33%/33%
-or-
A 3-party system where the 3rd choice popularly beats the 2 we have now --> 100%/0%/0%
-or-
A 3-party system that has 2 parties that are strong and one irrelevant like we have now --> 50%/50%/0%

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Dutch

A 3 party system or a 3rd alternative that beats the 2 we have? Or a 3 party system that has 2 parties that are strong and one irrelevant?

3 party. Democrat, Republican and then one that actually thinks.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I wish we would get away from a 2 party system.

Granted, while I'm at it I should just wish for chocolate rivers, gum drop rain and unicorns.

When I voted for Bob Barr I don't remember anyone holding a gun to my head and telling me I couldn't.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by panerd

When I voted for Bob Barr I don't remember anyone holding a gun to my head and telling me I couldn't.

I didn't say there was. I'm talking about another party that actually wields some level of power.

[molson]

I wonder how many people don't vote third party just because "they want their vote to count", as if their individual vote will change the election no matter who they vote for.

A third party will have power if people vote for it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Then you have no excuse.

Actually the Liberterians have been saying all of the things all along that the Republicans have all of a sudden discovered again.

[panerd]

I blame the Democrats now for what is happening to this country now but when the Republicans win the 2010 elections I will blame their supporters when it is back to their 2000-2008 brand of governing. Do I think the Liberertarians might do the same thing if they get the power? Sure it's human nature but why not give them the chance. The other two parties have proven they are completely unable to cut back their programs and have a smaller federal government.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

I blame the Democrats now for what is happening to this country now but when the Republicans win the 2010 elections I will blame their supporters when it is back to their 2000-2008 brand of governing. Do I think the Liberertarians might do the same thing if they get the power? Sure it's human nature but why not give them the chance. The other two parties have proven they are completely unable to cut back their programs and have a smaller federal government.

It's doubtful the Republicans can make enough gains to take control by 2010. The Senate map does not look good for them. They'll do well to get back within filibuster range. In the House, they need a 40 seat gain, which would eclipse even the Dem landslide of 2006.

They have a better shot in 2012, when the Dems will be defending all of the Senate seats they won in 2006, and they'll likely be in range for the House.

[flere-imsaho]

The electoral-vote guy has a decent writeup here, which can serve as a starting primer for the 2010 Senate.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

They'll do well to get back within filibuster range.

heh. From my POV it's "They'll do well to get back enough to break the monopoly of power."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Quite so. Thus the difference between the statement "Obama's approval rating is now below 50%" and "We now have a poll with Obama's approval rating below 50%".

To be honest, I occasionally get chastise for too much editorial content in a post with a link, so I cut down the length of my comment. Now you point out that I didn't clarify enough. I should just start posting links and nothing else to remove any doubt.

[Flasch186]

The unfortunate part of ALL of this is that as Mel Martinez (R) claimed in regards to the Sotomayor SC process, things have gotten so partisan that it would seem going back many many years, including times when the Republicans held congress and the Dems had the White house, the 2 sides simply refuse to work together in light of the both sides vision of things being a "game" between them. Things probably would work best for the country if only one party held a branch while the other party held the other (SC aside). Unfortunately Im afraid that that will never pan out again since both sides simply want to "beat" the other instead of 'compromising'. Its a shame really but it is what it is.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

To be honest, I occasionally get chastise for too much editorial content in a post with a link, so I cut down the length of my comment. Now you point out that I didn't clarify enough. I should just start posting links and nothing else to remove any doubt.

BS, that only occurred in the Iran thread where we were clamoring for news because it wasnt elsewhere. IF anything the rolling topics in this thread are newsworthy TOO much in that they can be find anywhere and in great amounts on the interwebs. Feel free to put opinion in here BUT be aware that your 'spin' on things that are empirical is truly awesome, like polling data, actual results, but not unexpected.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the 2 sides simply refuse to work together in light of the both sides vision of things being a "game" between them.

I don't know that many of them, nor their voters, see it as a "game". More like a "war".

[flere-imsaho]

FYI - I was born in Kenya too:

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Obama has now dropped to a 50% approval rating.

Terms of Service

That's a bit misleading. It's a classic Drudge move to cherry pick one poll out of hundreds and use it as fact. I remember during the election Drudge putting up one random poll with sirens that had McCain up 1 point while the other 999 had him down 7.

I have no doubt his poll numbers are dropping, but a rolling average of polls is probably best. Also adjusting for party affiliation, race, and so forth. I believe the guy at Five Thirty Eight does an awesome job at that and essentially was able to use all the polls and his weighting of how accurate they are to project the election results.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder how many people don't vote third party just because "they want their vote to count", as if their individual vote will change the election no matter who they vote for.

A third party will have power if people vote for it.

It's the chicken and the egg. I think one of the bigger fears beyond one of their vote not counting is that not voting for the lesser of two evils means getting the more evil one.

For instance in my Congressional disctrict it was Rahm Emanuel vs a racist Freeper (not kidding, she was a freeper who had a bunch of racist rants on the site and was called out by news networks here). Now I'm not a big fan of Rahm and would prefer to vote 3rd party, but do I want to risk having a racist young Earth creationist representing our district? I'm wondering if run-off elections or another method would help alleviate the fear of voting for a 3rd party.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

While not fully agreeing with your characterization of all the protesters as 'teabaggers' (you're better than that.....don't get lazy), I agree that they are generally not behaving well and are doing themselves a disservice if you look solely at their actions. With that said, the Democrats are making a big misstep with some of their comments and reactions. Let the people at the protests stand on their own merit. If you start attacking them, it's not going to end well as you correctly cited with similar reactions during the Bush Administration. It lends legitimacy to what may not be all that legitimate. They should follow Obama's lead concerning the birth certificate situation. Let the blowhards keep blowing.

I think anyone who comes to a townhall with the sole goal of disrupting it for others is a jagoff. If anything, I would be more inclined to go against what they are saying.

McCain made a tweet about it yesterday. There is nothing wrong with going to a townhall and voicing your concerns/displeasure, but do so in an appropriate manner that doesn't disrupt it. These are places for representatives to give their thoughts as well as be questioned by constituents. Yelling and screaming like a jackass is just insulting everyone who is there and makes any "movement" look bad. No different than the idiots screaming and yelling in the name of war protests.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

They're the Code Pink of the right.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's doubtful the Republicans can make enough gains to take control by 2010. The Senate map does not look good for them. They'll do well to get back within filibuster range. In the House, they need a 40 seat gain, which would eclipse even the Dem landslide of 2006.

They have a better shot in 2012, when the Dems will be defending all of the Senate seats they won in 2006, and they'll likely be in range for the House.

Agreed. They will have a shot to pick up some House seats but the Senate is going to be tough on them. They have a lot more open seats in a lot of blue/purple states. They should be focusing more on 2012.

It's still a long way till election time though. If the economy recovers by November of next year, I think it makes it harder to gain anything. If the economy crashes, they have a good shot. Kind of sad but they are essentially in the position the Dems were in of needing the country to go to shit to win.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's the chicken and the egg. I think one of the bigger fears beyond one of their vote not counting is that not voting for the lesser of two evils means getting the more evil one.

For instance in my Congressional disctrict it was Rahm Emanuel vs a racist Freeper (not kidding, she was a freeper who had a bunch of racist rants on the site and was called out by news networks here). Now I'm not a big fan of Rahm and would prefer to vote 3rd party, but do I want to risk having a racist young Earth creationist representing our district? I'm wondering if run-off elections or another method would help alleviate the fear of voting for a 3rd party.

I think IRV would be the perfect method, but have no doubt that too many Americans are too stupid to understand it.

[larrymcg421]

It'd be interesting to hear the 31 Republicans explain why this comment from Alito did not bother them:

"And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Especially Tom Coburn, whose response to this was, "Thank You."

[Arles]

You really think stating that his personal experiences help him understand/relate to a certain case is the same as this:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

It's not like Alito stated that he would hope a wise Italian man would reach a better conclusion than a latino woman. You do see the difference here, right? (hoping this is the case...)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yelling and screaming like a jackass is just insulting everyone who is there and makes any "movement" look bad.

Not nearly as bad as where I think we're heading pretty swiftly.

Sooner or later these things -- be it about health care or whatever half-baked scheme comes up between now & the next recess -- are going to turn violent.

I don't get the sense of frustration, disappointment, concern, whatever that I was getting a few months ago. There seems to be a rising tide of just flat out anger & that usually has a fairly predictable outcome.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not nearly as bad as where I think we're heading pretty swiftly.

Sooner or later these things -- be it about health care or whatever half-baked scheme comes up between now & the next recess -- are going to turn violent.

I don't get the sense of frustration, disappointment, concern, whatever that I was getting a few months ago. There seems to be a rising tide of just flat out anger & that usually has a fairly predictable outcome.

Probably. We've had a few small ones in the last year but a lot of the crazy talk is helping create the next Timothy McVeigh.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

You really think stating that his personal experiences help him understand/relate to a certain case is the same as this:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

It's not like Alito stated that he would hope a wise Italian man would reach a better conclusion than a latino woman. You do see the difference here, right? (hoping this is the case...)

Well, why would he take it into account unless he thought it could help him reach a better conclusion? I mean, if it would help him, then someone who doesn't have those experiences would not have that help, right?

And here's an example of the hypocrisy I'm talking about:

Originally Posted by Sessions

Judge, I -- I think it's consistent in the comments I've quoted to you and your previous statements that you do believe that your backgrounds will accept -- affect the result in cases, and that's troubling me.

Alito's comment certainly does not fit that standard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Probably. We've had a few small ones in the last year but a lot of the crazy talk is helping create the next Timothy McVeigh.

I dunno, unless DC itself is the target, I imagine the target would be more like an individual(s) or very small targeted gathering rather than something large & relatively non-specific.

[RainMaker]

Saw this on Drudge:

Protests, passions roiling town hall meeting on health care

Six people, including P-D reporter, arrested at Carnahan meeting - STLtoday.com

Don't really understand the point. You want to voice your displeasure and have the opportunity to put your representative on the spot. So why just scream like an idiot and ruin it for everyone else?

I have to hand it to the insurance lobby though, they sure know how to herd the sheep and let them do the dirty work for them.

[Flasch186]

House Democrat received Countrywide loans: report - Yahoo! News

These loan records ought to be released and whomever got sweetheart loans from Countrywide, be it Dem or Pub, ought to be forced to resign from Congress. Jerks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Saw this on Drudge:

Protests, passions roiling town hall meeting on health care

Six people, including P-D reporter, arrested at Carnahan meeting - STLtoday.com

Don't really understand the point. You want to voice your displeasure and have the opportunity to put your representative on the spot. So why just scream like an idiot and ruin it for everyone else?

I have to hand it to the insurance lobby though, they sure know how to herd the sheep and let them do the dirty work for them.

Did you bother to even read these articles before you posted them? First, the lady who had to be restrained by pepper spray was yelling in the meeting in SUPPORT of the health care bill. I thought the only disruptive people were the Republican 'mobs'? FWIW.....I sincerely hope that this woman and the prejudice cop who showed her little sympathy can have a beer on the White House lawn in the near future........

She said she saw a woman in handcuffs who was complaining about the pain of the spray and asking to wash her face and eyes. The response of the officer who was arresting her was, “I warned you,” Majors said.

Majors said the woman had been speaking very loudly and passionately in support of health-care reform earlier in the evening.

“She made herself very visible,” Majors said.

It also appears that the supporters of the bill were dropping racial slurs.......

St. Louis County police say six people were arrested. Two of those were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances. Carnahan was gone when the ruckus started.

Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with “Don't tread on me” printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started.

“It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked,” he said.

Listen, I'm not a supporter of the tactics being used here, but there was no physical violence at any of these meetings until today right after the Democratic party made a call for their supporters to 'punch back twice as hard'. It appears they took that statement a bit too literally.

Here's a situation where a Democrat had a public meeting gone awry. As the article notes, many of the people who were attending and were upset had no affiliation at all. His response in the paper and how he handled the situation should be a playbook for the Democrats who want to handle this the right way. This man is doing his party a service with this kind of behavior.........

Protesters Confront U.S. Representative At Simsbury Supermarket Meeting -- Courant.com

But many who attended were not affiliated with an established group. Maryann Culkin, a stay-at-home mother from Avon, said she represents no one but herself. She went to Stop & Shop simply because she wanted to have a word or two with her congressman.

"For the first time in my life, I'm embarrassed and scared of where my country is going," Culkin told Murphy. She is worried about how the government will pay for Obama's health care policies.

Murphy said it didn't matter to him whether those attending were part of a coordinated effort or just on their own.

"Any time I'm talking to my constituents in an unfiltered way I consider it productive," he said in a phone interview afterward.

Murphy acknowledged that a few angry voices dominated the gathering, at least initially. But he said that didn't bother him. "Was that out of a Norman Rockwell town meeting painting? No. But there are big issues being discussed in Washington ... and people have a right to be concerned, even angry about it."

This video is a great example of how the opposition should behave when they attend these meetings. Never aggressive, but certainly willing to point out the misstatements when they occur. When the meeting organizer leaves, the attendees continue the discussion on their own. I think that they conducted themselves well while making sure that their voices were heard.

Breitbart.tv » AARP Organizers Cancel ‘Listening Session’ After Participants Refuse to ‘Keep Their Comments Quiet’

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I noticed that the unemployment rate dropped from 9.5% to 9.4%.

***cue White House release stating the stimulus bill has turned around the economy in 3......2......1......***

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I mean, looking at the modesty of the plan -- which would cover 40 million people, impose some small taxes on the rich,

Sorry, but I LOL'd

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yes, it's clearly all the Democrat's fault. I mean, it's not that astroturfing has been going on since day once to spread lies about the health care bill. It's not like conservative talkers have been telling their listeners lies and falsehoods about the health care bill. It's not like multiple members of Congress got death threats over this bill, which by the way, is not that extreme a bill.

I mean seriously. This isn't some massive liberal bill. It's moderately center-left. I mean, looking at the modesty of the plan -- which would cover 40 million people, impose some small taxes on the rich, curb the worst excesses of the insurance industry and not affect the overwhelming majority of people at all -- and you compare it to the pitch of the rhetoric and really wish that the plan on the table was actually worth this much controversy and rage. It is evidence for the view that the difference between proposing something really ambitious and something pretty modest is that the modest plan gets you more industry support. The political mobilization and polarization will be the same either way.

I really shouldn't even bother as I think it's pretty clear where your loyalties lie (and that you're posting from the White House ), but I'll give it a go.

1. Never did I say it was all the Democrats' fault. I said I disagreed with the tactics used by the opposition to shout down people and I don't think the physical confrontation on the other side is right either.

2. You toss out many talking points with little to back it up. It's hard to agree or disagree with you concerning lies on either side when you don't cite any specific examples.

3. Even a Democrat would have a hard time describing this bill as anyting other than a liberal bill. As my grandmother (who is a Democrat) said, "Yes, it's a liberal bill and I'm damn proud of it!".

4. It's also far from the modest level you describe. These are big changes that will significantly alter the landscape of the health care industry. Certainly, you could argue whether it's good or bad change, but any attempt to minimize the level of change will fall on deaf ear.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I noticed that the unemployment rate dropped from 9.5% to 9.4%.

***cue White House release stating the stimulus bill has turned around the economy in 3......2......1......***

You act like this is a bad thing? I'm no rabid supporter of the democrats' plans, but at least they are offering plans. There was a letter published yesterday from the head of the RNC talking as the president's 2nd 100 days are up (stupid to be judging him every 100 days, but that's the media's fault). All he talked about was everything the democrats were doing wrong. Even went as far to say as unemployment would be going up even more. I'm sure he'll come out today and minimize the news like you are trying to do, but I'd much rather the leadership get together and figure out how to put something of their own forth (something real, not that last piece of crap budget they slapped together in 6 hours) instead of meeting to figure out how best to spin every piece of news. That's Fox News's job.

I just think the RNC and reps are playing to people with your attitude who claim they want things to improve, but don't work toward anything but criticizing people who are at least trying to do something. I have a baby girl, it does sicken me some of the shit that's being put through. Cash for clunkers, cap and trade, stimulus monies. But how am I supposed to vote for the other side? Because they say after 8 years of their own spending spree on wars and tax cuts that we shouldn't be investing in our health, economy, and banks? I just don't see why you seem to happy to bash the fact that for once the unemployment number shrank instead of jumped up again.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

You act like this is a bad thing? I'm no rabid supporter of the democrats' plans, but at least they are offering plans. There was a letter published yesterday from the head of the RNC talking as the president's 2nd 100 days are up (stupid to be judging him every 100 days, but that's the media's fault). All he talked about was everything the democrats were doing wrong. Even went as far to say as unemployment would be going up even more. I'm sure he'll come out today and minimize the news like you are trying to do, but I'd much rather the leadership get together and figure out how to put something of their own forth (something real, not that last piece of crap budget they slapped together in 6 hours) instead of meeting to figure out how best to spin every piece of news. That's Fox News's job.

I just think the RNC and reps are playing to people with your attitude who claim they want things to improve, but don't work toward anything but criticizing people who are at least trying to do something. I have a baby girl, it does sicken me some of the shit that's being put through. Cash for clunkers, cap and trade, stimulus monies. But how am I supposed to vote for the other side? Because they say after 8 years of their own spending spree on wars and tax cuts that we shouldn't be investing in our health, economy, and banks? I just don't see why you seem to happy to bash the fact that for once the unemployment number shrank instead of jumped up again.

So you posted all that under the assumption that I believe it to be a bad thing when I said nothing of the sort? My only point was that I'm sure that the small improvement means that politicians will give credit to policy A while making sure to point out that it would have been even better with policy B enacted.

Me personally? I'm glad that the unemployment rate is reduced strictly from a humanitarian perspective. It's never a good thing to have people suffer due to political and economic greed totally out of their control.

Also, it should be pointed out that your overgeneral statement in your post that I boldfaced just isn't true. No one on either side of the aisle is saying we shouldn't improve in those areas. We just disagree on how it should be done, hence the reason that we're seeing heavy debate both inside and outside of D.C.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So you posted all that under the assumption that I believe it to be a bad thing when I said nothing of the sort? My only point was that I'm sure that the small improvement means that politicians will give credit to policy A while making sure to point out that it would have been even better with policy B enacted.

Me personally? I'm glad that the unemployment rate is reduced strictly from a humanitarian perspective. It's never a good thing to have people suffer due to political and economic greed totally out of their control.

Also, it should be pointed out that your overgeneral statement in your post that I boldfaced just isn't true. No one on either side of the aisle is saying we shouldn't improve in those areas. We just disagree on how it should be done, hence the reason that we're seeing heavy debate both inside and outside of D.C.

Well, thanks for cherry-picking one sentence to reply to. I was overgeneralizing to state why I don't think the other side really has the answer. Both sides spent/spend a shit ton and just criticize the other side for where it goes.

I didn't post it under the guise you think it's a bad thing, though you do seem to enjoy gloating when things aren't going well. I posted it because there was a little good news, albeit fairly minor (though economists were expecting 325k jobs lost, and just 240k or so were lost), and all you could do it pre-criticize the White House for attempting to put a positive spin on it. I'm sorry if you are blinded by your neutrality and centrism, but this is how it was. If people like you put half as much effort in to improving your local community (or at least working with people to achieve goals) as you did in posting polls to tell us that Obama's numbers are dropping (thanks, I can read CNN too), we'd have a much better place to call home.

Now go back to finding news that the economy is shit, cash for clunkers is waste, banks are dirty, and Democrats aren't doing anything.

[fpres]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But the truth is, a truly liberal bill would not get the backing of the AMA, the drug companies, and many health insurers.

A little too much weight gets placed on the whole AMA backing thing. While it's true that it happens to be the largest physician organization in America, its membership includes roughly 15% of the nation's physicians (give or take). Read into that what you will. I'm just saying that "AMA backing" does not equate to "physician backing," which some people seem to try to hang their hat on as far as the healthcare debate goes.

Regarding the backing of the drug companies, I think you revealed some of the motive behind that support yourself...

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.
Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.
In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Sorry, but I LOL'd

So did I. "Small taxes on the rich" indeed. Undoubtably middle class tax increases are going to happen, at some point, to pay for the health plan.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by miked

You act like this is a bad thing? I'm no rabid supporter of the democrats' plans, but at least they are offering plans.

I was thinking about this the other day.

It seems to me that since at least the late Reagan years (and really getting underway by 1994) the GOP (and its national politicians especially) have generally been more comfortable being the party of "No". I'll posit that this is the case because the modern GOP tends to prefer "destructive" policies as opposed to "constructive" ones.

(Now, before you get all up in arms about the use of that language, I'm meaning "destructive" in the sense of they'd prefer to dismantle programs, as opposed to create new ones. If you'd like to suggest another word, please do so.)

Perhaps the best of the most recent examples was the debacle of the Paul Ryan-authored GOP "stimulus" plan being trotted out in response to Obama's earlier this year. It was woefully lacking in details (the same criticism leveled at the Democrats' current health care bills, ironically) and seemed to consist of vague promises to lower taxes and dismantle government programs. And this from a guy (Ryan) who is supposedly a "deep thinker" on these topics (a claim I'm willing to believe given that {full disclosure} I know someone personally who works on Ryan's staff).

So it seems to me that what we're doing here is settling into the familiar turf of the pitched partisan battles of the mid/late 1990s. The GOP, safe in the knowledge that everyone knows they can't get anything drastic passed that won't get vetoed, has a free reign to just criticize relentlessly, hoping that it eventually results in an electoral victory from a tired electorate (and if the electorate in 2000 was anything, it was tired of the status quo).

The problem for the GOP, I think, is that it's quite a different situation this time around. For one, more than any time since WWII Americans aren't overly concerned about their taxes. For two, it's pretty well-established that when times are tough, people tend to want government to "do something". (Whether or not that's a good reaction is left up to the reader and his/her personal philosophies.)

So at a time when Americans seem to be willing (albeit grudgingly) to let a Democratic President make some serious structural changes, and perhaps raise some taxes, the GOP seems content to brand itself as the "Party of No". So they'll say No to a qualified Supreme Court candidate, No to "Cash for Clunkers", No to the stimulus package, continue to hold up appointments to Justice, Interior, etc... and etc.... Further, they're happy to encourage (or at least not disassociate themselves from) the birthers & teabaggers in their pursuit of clearly obstructionist and "non-constructive" public activities.

It's clearly a gamble, and a stronger one than I would have expected at this point, especially as the GOP's popularity, on a national level, continues to bump along the bottom. America clearly has at least one problem (a recession) if not several (health care costs, energy independence, etc...), but the national GOP seems content to offer only a negative response to potential solutions with no solutions themselves (aside from "lower taxes" and "dismantle government programs").

We'll know soon enough if this tactic results in electoral success, by looking at the 2010 elections. But I have to think that if the economy recovers to any significant extent by mid-2010 a track record of "destruction" and "obstruction" will be a hard sell in the mid-term elections.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by miked

I'm sorry if you are blinded by your neutrality and centrism

Nicely worded

[fpres]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

My point on the AMA is more they've been against every other stab at health care reform since freakin' Truman. So, the fact they're on board this time means it's not some wack-a-loon leftie plan.

Also, that article I quoted is part of the reason why some liberals/social democrats like myself aren't really that happy with Obama's plan.

Fair enough... My point on the AMA is that it is not as relevant an organization as it once might have been. (membership declining from 45% to the 15-20% range over the past two decades) There does, however, seem to be a growing perception within the medical community that the AMA has not and will not represent physician interests (or patient interests, for that matter) adequately.

And before you go there, I'm not talking just about healthcare reform when I mention "physician interests." Many AMA and non-AMA physicians happen to support healthcare reform. That's not the issue. It's the sum total of a variety of issues (and AMA response or lack thereof) that makes the association a joke in many medical circles.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I was thinking about this the other day.

It seems to me that since at least the late Reagan years (and really getting underway by 1994) the GOP (and its national politicians especially) have generally been more comfortable being the party of "No". I'll posit that this is the case because the modern GOP tends to prefer "destructive" policies as opposed to "constructive" ones.

(Now, before you get all up in arms about the use of that language, I'm meaning "destructive" in the sense of they'd prefer to dismantle programs, as opposed to create new ones. If you'd like to suggest another word, please do so.)

Perhaps the best of the most recent examples was the debacle of the Paul Ryan-authored GOP "stimulus" plan being trotted out in response to Obama's earlier this year. It was woefully lacking in details (the same criticism leveled at the Democrats' current health care bills, ironically) and seemed to consist of vague promises to lower taxes and dismantle government programs. And this from a guy (Ryan) who is supposedly a "deep thinker" on these topics (a claim I'm willing to believe given that {full disclosure} I know someone personally who works on Ryan's staff).

So it seems to me that what we're doing here is settling into the familiar turf of the pitched partisan battles of the mid/late 1990s. The GOP, safe in the knowledge that everyone knows they can't get anything drastic passed that won't get vetoed, has a free reign to just criticize relentlessly, hoping that it eventually results in an electoral victory from a tired electorate (and if the electorate in 2000 was anything, it was tired of the status quo).

The problem for the GOP, I think, is that it's quite a different situation this time around. For one, more than any time since WWII Americans aren't overly concerned about their taxes. For two, it's pretty well-established that when times are tough, people tend to want government to "do something". (Whether or not that's a good reaction is left up to the reader and his/her personal philosophies.)

So at a time when Americans seem to be willing (albeit grudgingly) to let a Democratic President make some serious structural changes, and perhaps raise some taxes, the GOP seems content to brand itself as the "Party of No". So they'll say No to a qualified Supreme Court candidate, No to "Cash for Clunkers", No to the stimulus package, continue to hold up appointments to Justice, Interior, etc... and etc.... Further, they're happy to encourage (or at least not disassociate themselves from) the birthers & teabaggers in their pursuit of clearly obstructionist and "non-constructive" public activities.

It's clearly a gamble, and a stronger one than I would have expected at this point, especially as the GOP's popularity, on a national level, continues to bump along the bottom. America clearly has at least one problem (a recession) if not several (health care costs, energy independence, etc...), but the national GOP seems content to offer only a negative response to potential solutions with no solutions themselves (aside from "lower taxes" and "dismantle government programs").

We'll know soon enough if this tactic results in electoral success, by looking at the 2010 elections. But I have to think that if the economy recovers to any significant extent by mid-2010 a track record of "destruction" and "obstruction" will be a hard sell in the mid-term elections.

The problem with taxes is you have the "tax the rich" statements. If the Obama and Dems start to tax the middle-and-lower classes (and it will happen, it's just a matter of when), the views on taxes will likely change.

Of course, when it comes to income taxes, nearly 50% doesn't have to pay (or receives back more than they paid in).

[rowech]

Or just change the definitions of upper and middle class.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

If people like you put half as much effort in to improving your local community (or at least working with people to achieve goals) as you did in posting polls to tell us that Obama's numbers are dropping (thanks, I can read CNN too), we'd have a much better place to call home.

Now go back to finding news that the economy is shit, cash for clunkers is waste, banks are dirty, and Democrats aren't doing anything.

If you knew me and what I actually do in my community in my spare time, you'd feel like a jackass for making the above statement.

Good to see you return to overgeneralized and inaccurate statements in your last sentence.

[cartman]

Unless your online persona is a complete fabrication, MBBF, I find that hard to believe.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you knew me and what I actually do in my community in my spare time, you'd feel like a jackass for making the above statement.

Good to see you return to overgeneralized and inaccurate statements in your last sentence.

Maybe you could chime in then, since your posts only seem to be to "report news" which means "report news that is against the administration and current majority". Oops, another over-generalization. I don't doubt people do good things for their community, I just wish you'd spend more time talking about how that will make the country better than just cutting and pasting polls and conservative blogger talking points.

Plus, I really don't care enough to feel like jackass. Your obvious gloating this morning just irritated me on a slow day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Now go back to finding news that the economy is shit, cash for clunkers is waste, banks are dirty, and Democrats aren't doing anything.

Damn you can't even get that right can you?

The economy is wasted, banks are dirty, cash for clunkers isn't doing anything as much as putting more people into debt they can't pay, and Democrats aren't worth a shit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Plus, I really don't care enough to feel like jackass. Your obvious gloating this morning just irritated me on a slow day.

Mine would have done a hell of a lot more than irritate you in that case.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Mine would have done a hell of a lot more than irritate you in that case.

Probably not, since you never try to play the 'innocent victim' card.