PDA

View Full Version : Elections David Frum: Waterloo


Direckshun
03-21-2010, 07:39 PM
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Waterloo
by David Frum
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

penchief
03-21-2010, 07:54 PM
Wow. Didn't see that coming. Though it is nice to see a little vindication for many of the points I've tried to make. Especially coming from someone within the republican establishment.

Taco John
03-21-2010, 08:57 PM
It's like I say... We're not becoming a socialist nation because the Democrats have been compromising *THEIR* principles. This is what you get when you elect Bush's and try to elect Doles/McCains, and forget that the States are where the power should be, not the Federal Government.

orange
03-21-2010, 09:09 PM
I wonder if the Republicans are going to make McConnell and Boehner pay for this.

Gingrich at least had the sense to fall on his sword.

Direckshun
03-21-2010, 09:14 PM
It's like I say... We're not becoming a socialist nation because the Democrats have been compromising *THEIR* principles. This is what you get when you elect Bush's and try to elect Doles/McCains, and forget that the States are where the power should be, not the Federal Government.

yay articles of confederation yay

Taco John
03-21-2010, 09:22 PM
I wonder if the Republicans are going to make McConnell and Boehner pay for this.

Gingrich at least had the sense to fall on his sword.


I don't think they will. Repblicans will largely see this as the Democrats forcing their will against the American people, and using chicanery to get it done. I'd be suprised to see McConnell in particular pay.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 09:31 PM
Damn Direckshun I was going to post this. Frum is dead on with his analysis.

Iowanian
03-21-2010, 11:18 PM
I see it more of a Bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The dems may have landed their bombs today, but they've infuriated an Army of people who really didn't put much effort into politics before. I look forward to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki of the Democrats who sodomized Americans today at the midterm and next general election.

Chiefshrink
03-21-2010, 11:25 PM
I see it more of a Bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The dems may have landed their bombs today, but they've infuriated an Army of people who really didn't put much effort into politics before. I look forward to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki of the Democrats who sodomized Americans today at the midterm and next general election.

DING DING DING DING:thumb:

Chiefshrink
03-21-2010, 11:29 PM
Damn Direckshun I was going to post this. Frum is dead on with his analysis.

Far from it.:shake:

blaise
03-21-2010, 11:30 PM
I don't know if saying the healthcare bill is forever is a positive or negative for either party yet, long term. I don't see how anyone could. It could end up being a disaster for democrats if it ends up a symbol of government overextension, not just in the next few years, but longer term. Or it could work out great for them. We'll have to see.

BillSelfsTrophycase
03-21-2010, 11:39 PM
I see it more of a Bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The dems may have landed their bombs today, but they've infuriated an Army of people who really didn't put much effort into politics before. I look forward to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki of the Democrats who sodomized Americans today at the midterm and next general election.


Yep, see the sig

fan4ever
03-21-2010, 11:46 PM
There are some valid points in the article; but the swath of destruction coming towards the Dems up for re-election this November is for real...and it won't be soon forgotten how things got done on this bill.

orange
03-21-2010, 11:49 PM
It won't be soon forgotten THAT things got done, either.

max sleeper
03-21-2010, 11:56 PM
There are some valid points in the article; but the swath of destruction coming towards the Dems up for re-election this November is for real...and it won't be soon forgotten how things got done on this bill.

This only happens if 1. the repubs. and tea baggers don't split the party and 2. Unemployment does not go down. If it starts to go down and we turn the corner dems. will stop the bleeding and maintain #'s.

fan4ever
03-21-2010, 11:56 PM
It won't be soon forgotten THAT things got done, either.

Exactly...against a majority of the people's will...but I know that's insignificant.

max sleeper
03-21-2010, 11:57 PM
It won't be soon forgotten THAT things got done, either.

:clap:

Mr. Flopnuts
03-21-2010, 11:59 PM
This place will implode if the Dems keep the majority in November.

fan4ever
03-22-2010, 12:02 AM
This only happens if 1. the repubs. and tea baggers don't split the party and 2. Unemployment does not go down. If it starts to go down and we turn the corner dems. will stop the bleeding and maintain #'s.

You're dreaming if you think (1.) People are going to forget this over a slight dip in unemployment, because a slight dip is best case scenario (2.) That a majority of the Tea Partiers don't know who this country's enemy is enough to unify. Let's talk again in November.

BillSelfsTrophycase
03-22-2010, 12:03 AM
This place will implode if the Dems keep the majority in November.

They won't, they assured that today

Taco John
03-22-2010, 12:04 AM
That a majority of the Tea Partiers don't know who this country's enemy is enough to unify.

You've got it exactly backwards. It's the Republican establishment who doesn't know who this country's enemies are. And if they don't listen to the tea party, then they deserve to lose. We didn't get to where we are at because Democrats have been compromising their principles the last hundred years. We had Nixon in the Whitehouse trying to do this himself.

Chiefshrink
03-22-2010, 12:12 AM
:clap:

I guess you are happy that not only your welfare check keeps coming in but now I will be paying for your healthcare...FANTASTIC:rolleyes:

Deadbeat:mad::mad:

Mr. Flopnuts
03-22-2010, 12:17 AM
They won't, they assured that today

Right. Which is why this place will implode if you're wrong. Never underestimate the power of the voting public. Mouth breathing, simpletons that vote strictly based off of who their favorite Hollywood celebrity tells them too.

If there's one thing that I've learned in the last 15 years or so of American politics, it's that these motherfuckers know exactly what they're doing.

BillSelfsTrophycase
03-22-2010, 12:31 AM
Right. Which is why this place will implode if you're wrong. Never underestimate the power of the voting public. Mouth breathing, simpletons that vote strictly based off of who their favorite Hollywood celebrity tells them too.

If there's one thing that I've learned in the last 15 years or so of American politics, it's that these motherfuckers know exactly what they're doing.


As you said, Never underestimate the power of the voting public


I think there's enough pissed off people now (myself included) to end this madness


God willing.......

Saggysack
03-22-2010, 05:26 AM
<object width="448" height="284"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002619/vxml.php?448"></param><embed src="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="448" height="284" flashvars="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002619/vxml.php?448"></embed></object>

patteeu
03-22-2010, 05:47 AM
This place will implode if the Dems keep the majority in November.

I don't think so. By then, people will realize that it's always been a pretty steep hill to climb to take over the House and a nearly impossible task to take over the Senate. It will be disappointing (but not implosion level) if the Republicans can't get a slim majority in the House, but it will be shocking if they end up with a majority in the Senate.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 05:55 AM
This Frum article is nonsense.

The democrats have HUGE majorities in Congress right now. If a handful of Republicans would have caved early, it's likely that the final product would have been even more objectionable than what we ended up with yesterday AND the democrats would have had bipartisan cover for it.

By taking this path, Republicans have successfully demonized democrats the way democrats demonized Republicans over the past 8 years. That's not going to go away over night. People will remember the ugly process that the democrats had to go through despite their supermajority status. A good idea should have sailed through both houses of Congress, but instead it took an amazing amount of shady dealing and arm twisting to get it done.

jjjayb
03-22-2010, 06:10 AM
If Scott Brown and the rest of the Republicans that have been elected recently aren't warning enough, I don't know what is. If the tea party movement isn't warning enough I don't know what is. Democrats will pay a heavy price come November. Keep your head in the sand, but it will happen.

Bill Parcells
03-22-2010, 06:15 AM
The Democrats pulled an Operation Barbarossa. The Republicans will become Georgi Zhukovs ;)

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/st/~colinm/Stalingrad%20Pics/zhukov.jpg

penchief
03-22-2010, 06:50 AM
Exactly...against a majority of the people's will...but I know that's insignificant.

Again, the majority of the people did want something done about health care. This particular bill took a beating from both left and right causing those numbrers to change.

However, now that the deal is done there will be a more factual analysis of the bill and many of the falsehoods and distortions that were employed to mobilize so many on the right will be dispelled causing the rancor to dissipate somewhat.

I don't see it as a certainty that a huge wave of angry citizens is going to punish democrats. Is there a very vocal and rigid minority on the right who will carry their outrage to the polls? Absolutely. But I think most people who wanted health care reform to begin with are going to be more open-minded between now and November.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 07:10 AM
This Frum article is nonsense.

The democrats have HUGE majorities in Congress right now.
Huge majority = Fillibuster proof these days. Dems don't have that luxury anymore. Besides Dems are a big tent. Many politicial views are tolerated under the one banner, Democrats. Getting them all to agree on something has historically been quite difficult. Which makes what Obama was able to pull off pretty impressive politically.
By taking this path, Republicans have successfully demonized democrats the way democrats demonized Republicans over the past 8 years. That's not going to go away over night. People will remember the ugly process that the democrats had to go through despite their supermajority status. A good idea should have sailed through both houses of Congress, but instead it took an amazing amount of shady dealing and arm twisting to get it done.
I think that the vast majority of Americans don't give two chits about "the process". Since when have Americans ever did anything about the lobbyist and backroom deals made in Washington? This has been the "process" forever in Washington. I'd be in favor of some "real" reform to kick out the lobbyist and ban pork forever. But the Republicans don't want that either.

I don't think that Dems will be demonized for this, on the contrary, history will show the Republicans were on the wrong side of history again, just liek they were for medicare, civil rights, social security etc etc.

oldandslow
03-22-2010, 07:39 AM
I will be the first to admit this bill is not single payer and that I have severe reservations concerning parts of the bill...

still, Obama will get a bump from this. I guarantee it. American people love the construct of an empirial presidency. This move just shouts success.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 07:46 AM
I will be the first to admit this bill is not single payer and that I have severe reservations concerning parts of the bill...

still, Obama will get a bump from this. I guarantee it. American people love the construct of an empirial presidency. This move just shouts success.I agree, its not the bill I would have wanted but its not government run healthcare, it's not death panels and the government deciding health care choices for its citzens.

From the Obama presidency prespective, No matter how you slice it...for 100 years Presidents have taken up health care reform, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Nixon, Truman and Clinton all put forth major efforts and spent major amounts of political capital and got diddly squat for their efforts. Obama got it done. It was a messy process. But, does anyone remember the "process" for medicare, social security, civil rights etc.? no. Just that it got done. He showed some leadership the last few months. He kicked some azz behind closed doors and twisted arms just like every other successful president has that came before him. Like the man said....This is what change looks like.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 07:52 AM
If Scott Brown and the rest of the Republicans that have been elected recently aren't warning enough, I don't know what is. If the tea party movement isn't warning enough I don't know what is. Democrats will pay a heavy price come November. Keep your head in the sand, but it will happen.

Don't overestimate how much can be done this November. The democrats still have a lot of safe seats in the House and Senate seats that aren't up for grabs this time around.

dirk digler
03-22-2010, 07:57 AM
It won't be soon forgotten THAT things got done, either.

Exactly. The Dems would have a lot bigger blood bath had they done nothing on health care because their supporters want health care reform in the worst way. They would have all stayed home come November now they will be energized.

oldandslow
03-22-2010, 08:06 AM
Don't overestimate how much can be done this November. The democrats still have a lot of safe seats in the House and Senate seats that aren't up for grabs this time around.

Love the way you downplay expectations patt...Playbook, page 23.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 08:18 AM
Huge majority = Fillibuster proof these days. Dems don't have that luxury anymore. Besides Dems are a big tent. Many politicial views are tolerated under the one banner, Democrats. Getting them all to agree on something has historically been quite difficult. Which makes what Obama was able to pull off pretty impressive politically.

Good lord, wtf are you talking about? A 59 seat majority in the Senate is still a huge majority, but more importantly, they had a 60 seat majority for almost a year and they could have passed anything during that time so let's not start weeping about how difficult the legislative path is for dear Obama. The more politically impressive thing about this health care legislation is how inept the democrats proved to be and how much of a leadership void there is at the White House.

I think that the vast majority of Americans don't give two chits about "the process". Since when have Americans ever did anything about the lobbyist and backroom deals made in Washington? This has been the "process" forever in Washington. I'd be in favor of some "real" reform to kick out the lobbyist and ban pork forever. But the Republicans don't want that either.

I don't think that Dems will be demonized for this, on the contrary, history will show the Republicans were on the wrong side of history again, just liek they were for medicare, civil rights, social security etc etc.

Your grasp of history is impressively poor. None of those votes were along partisan lines. The most solid voting block against civil rights legislation, for example, was southern democrats, not Republicans.

As for your "since when" question, how soon you forget. One of the reasons you and so many others were in worshipful ecstasy over Barack Obama was his promise to change the way Washington does politics. Well, you got your change, but it's not the change you thought you were going to get. Washington is now more partisan and more corrupt than it's ever been thanks to you and other voters like you who believed in the rainbows and unicorns that Obama promised he'd deliver.

As a suporter of Obama since before the Iowa caucus I'm not upset at all.

Change for me was suppose to be a different approach to resolving our issues other than the way Bush went about it.

It was about ending the political partianship that had gridlocked Washington.

About change in our foreign policy.

An end to the lobbyist, big oil, pharmacy control of the political process in Washington.

Some attention paid to the middle class and not on Wall Street and big business.

I was not expecting a liberal agenda. The american people reject that as much as they reject the religious based nonsense of Rush Limbaugh and Sara Palin.

The best American presidents always govern from the middle because thats where the majority of Americans beliefs are firmly rooted.

Looks like you struck out on almost everything. Sorry about that, but you can't say you weren't warned. Of course, you've proven to be flexible enough that you've now become a big supporter of what you said you didn't want then so I guess you've got that going for you.

stevieray
03-22-2010, 08:20 AM
Good lord, wtf are you talking about? A 59 seat majority in the Senate is still a huge majority, but more importantly, they had a 60 seat majority for almost a year and they could have passed anything during that time so let's not start weeping about how difficult the legislative path is for dear Obama. The more politically impressive thing about this health care legislation is how inept the democrats proved to be and how much of a leadership void there is at the White House.



Your grasp of history is impressively poor. None of those votes were along partisan lines. The most solid voting block against civil rights legislation, for example, was southern democrats, not Republicans.

As for your "since when" question, how soon you forget. One of the reasons you and so many others were in worshipful ecstasy over Barack Obama was his promise to change the way Washington does politics. Well, you got your change, but it's not the change you thought you were going to get. Washington is now more partisan and more corrupt than it's ever been thanks to you and other voters like you who believed in the rainbows and unicorns that Obama promised he'd deliver.



Looks like you struck out on almost everything. Sorry about that, but you can't say you weren't warned. Of course, you've proven to be flexible enough that you've now become a big supporter of what you said you didn't want then so I guess you've got that going for you.

white guilt.

blaise
03-22-2010, 08:21 AM
Exactly. The Dems would have a lot bigger blood bath had they done nothing on health care because their supporters want health care reform in the worst way. They would have all stayed home come November now they will be energized.

People are more energized when they're angry though. People will be more inclined to try and get rid of people they're displeased with than others will be inclined to take up for someone because they're happy, in my opinion. It's like how when a football team stinks the radio stations get flooded with callers. People don't call as much to say a team is doing great.
I know the Democrats scored a victory, but I don't know how that's going to translate into votes, yet. I think there's people that didn't know much, or care much about the health care issue prior to Obama's election that maybe got a little jaded with Democrats over this.
Conservatives will vote Republican, liberals Democrat, but as far as the on the fence voters go I don't know if the reform was a good or bad thing in terms of votes.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 08:27 AM
Love the way you downplay expectations patt...Playbook, page 23.

I definitely think it's politically dangerous to let expectations be raised too high. If the election were held today, I might be more optimistic about taking over both houses of Congress, but some of the intensity of emotion over health care will almost certainly fade by November and there are bound to be some positive things to point to in the economy even if it's doubtful that we'll be anywhere near a robust recovery. People like BigRedChief will be saying something like this:

I've been saying all along that if the economy recovered that Obama and the democrats would deserve support for bringing us through the Bush depression. With unemployment down to just 9% and with the economy growing at a whopping 1%, we owe it to Obama to preserve his majorities in Congress so that he can continue to bring our economy back.

dirk digler
03-22-2010, 08:29 AM
People are more energized when they're angry though. People will be more inclined to try and get rid of people they're displeased with than others will be inclined to take up for someone because they're happy, in my opinion. It's like how when a football team stinks the radio stations get flooded with callers. People don't call as much to say a team is doing great.
I know the Democrats scored a victory, but I don't know how that's going to translate into votes, yet. I think there's people that didn't know much, or care much about the health care issue prior to Obama's election that maybe got a little jaded with Democrats over this.
Conservatives will vote Republican, liberals Democrat, but as far as the on the fence voters go I don't know if the reform was a good or bad thing in terms of votes.

That is a good take. I am thinking along the lines of there is some Dems that were on the border line of losing their seat but with the passage of this bill will be put in the fairly safe column. Mostly because their base wouldn't come out to support them.

Of course I still believe the economy\jobs will be the #1 issue that people will be voting on.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 08:32 AM
I agree, its not the bill I would have wanted but its not government run healthcare, it's not death panels and the government deciding health care choices for its citzens.

From the Obama presidency prespective, No matter how you slice it...for 100 years Presidents have taken up health care reform, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Nixon, Truman and Clinton all put forth major efforts and spent major amounts of political capital and got diddly squat for their efforts. Obama got it done. It was a messy process. But, does anyone remember the "process" for medicare, social security, civil rights etc.? no. Just that it got done. He showed some leadership the last few months. He kicked some azz behind closed doors and twisted arms just like every other successful president has that came before him. Like the man said....This is what change looks like.

It's also not cost containment or deficit reduction.

And he didn't show any leadership at all. He was the pitch man for a sausage made in Congress and that's about it. Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to a lesser extent, was the leader.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 08:34 AM
It's also not cost containment or deficit reduction.

And he didn't show any leadership at all. He was the pitch man for a sausage made in Congress and that's about it. Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to a lesser extent, was the leader.your grasp of history is the one slipping. History will show this as an "Obama" victory, not a Pelosi and Reif victory.

Chiefshrink
03-22-2010, 08:36 AM
white guilt.

and don't forget "HUGE DISDAIN" for America!!

patteeu
03-22-2010, 08:37 AM
your grasp of history is the one slipping. History will show this as an "Obama" victory, not a Pelosi and Reif victory.

That's not history, that's prognostication. And how it will be perceived is pretty irrelevant to what the truth of the matter was. Obama will get credit for the result, but he didn't demonstrate leadership. It's pathetic that he had so much difficulty getting this passed when he had a solid majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Just imagine what an actual leader like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan could have done with that.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 08:53 AM
Good lord, wtf are you talking about? A 59 seat majority in the Senate is still a huge majority, but more importantly, they had a 60 seat majority for almost a year and they could have passed anything during that time so let's not start weeping about how difficult the legislative path is for dear Obama. The more politically impressive thing about this health care legislation is how inept the democrats proved to be and how much of a leadership void there is at the White House.
Yeah it was sooooo easy to do all those Presidents failed because it was so easy to do. Some of those also had majorities in the congress. If it was so easy, why wasn't it accomplished under their presidencies?


Your grasp of history is impressively poor. None of those votes were along partisan lines. The most solid voting block against civil rights legislation, for example, was southern democrats, not Republicans.

I never said some Dems wern't also against those legislative bills, I was saying, my meaning was, that the majority of Republicans were against those bills and the majority of Democrats were for the bills.
As for your "since when" question, how soon you forget. One of the reasons you and so many others were in worshipful ecstasy over Barack Obama was his promise to change the way Washington does politics. Well, you got your change, but it's not the change you thought you were going to get.On this I agree. This has not been the change we were promised or hoped to see.

fan4ever
03-22-2010, 09:00 AM
You've got it exactly backwards. It's the Republican establishment who doesn't know who this country's enemies are. And if they don't listen to the tea party, then they deserve to lose. We didn't get to where we are at because Democrats have been compromising their principles the last hundred years. We had Nixon in the Whitehouse trying to do this himself.

I agree in part; we've deviated from the party we were, but we weren't the party who circumvented the process to get a massive bill passed that will forever change this country...that was also against the will of the public.

fan4ever
03-22-2010, 09:03 AM
Again, the majority of the people did want something done about health care. This particular bill took a beating from both left and right causing those numbrers to change.

However, now that the deal is done there will be a more factual analysis of the bill and many of the falsehoods and distortions that were employed to mobilize so many on the right will be dispelled causing the rancor to dissipate somewhat.

I don't see it as a certainty that a huge wave of angry citizens is going to punish democrats. Is there a very vocal and rigid minority on the right who will carry their outrage to the polls? Absolutely. But I think most people who wanted health care reform to begin with are going to be more open-minded between now and November.

You're correct; most of the people in this country wanted healthcare reform, but not one where the government had such far reaching control and took dozens, if not hundreds, of back door deals to get it passed. People are VERY angry about the process; perhaps even more than the bill...and we'll see come November. If the Democrats were so proud of this bill, and not afraid of the back lash, why didn't they stand for a roll count vote?

alnorth
03-22-2010, 09:13 AM
There are some valid points in the article; but the swath of destruction coming towards the Dems up for re-election this November is for real...and it won't be soon forgotten how things got done on this bill.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

The GOP gambled the entire future of the US health care system on the belief they could score total victory and defeat Obama in 2012. They lost, and lost big-time. They should have known that the risk for them was too great, but apparently they didn't care.

They could have compromised and made this bill far more conservative. Thanks to the blathering idiots on talk radio (Rush, Beck, Hannity, good job), the dems were forced to say "fine screw you guys then" and pass pretty much an irreversable left-wing vision of health care reform that will be with us forever. The only good thing is that it stopped short of a public option or single-payer, but that was no thanks to the GOP, it was only because of conservative dems.

dirk digler
03-22-2010, 09:16 AM
As for your "since when" question, how soon you forget. One of the reasons you and so many others were in worshipful ecstasy over Barack Obama was his promise to change the way Washington does politics. Well, you got your change, but it's not the change you thought you were going to get. Washington is now more partisan and more corrupt than it's ever been thanks to you and other voters like you who believed in the rainbows and unicorns that Obama promised he'd deliver.


You can't lay all the blame on Obama because from the get go Republicans have not supported hardly any of Obama's agenda. From the stimulus plan, cash for clunkers and even a watered down jobs bill. Hell they even bitched about his Afghanistan plan and now look stupid because it is working out pretty well.

You have to remember one of the reasons why the Dems swept into office in 2008 outside of hating Bush is because they are tired of Washington sitting on their ass and doing nothing.

alnorth
03-22-2010, 09:17 AM
This Frum article is nonsense.

The democrats have HUGE majorities in Congress right now. If a handful of Republicans would have caved early, it's likely that the final product would have been even more objectionable than what we ended up with yesterday AND the democrats would have had bipartisan cover for it.

By taking this path, Republicans have successfully demonized democrats the way democrats demonized Republicans over the past 8 years. That's not going to go away over night. People will remember the ugly process that the democrats had to go through despite their supermajority status. A good idea should have sailed through both houses of Congress, but instead it took an amazing amount of shady dealing and arm twisting to get it done.

The sticking point the GOP refused to budge on was the idea of universal health care. They should have known it was going to happen come hell or high water, and worked to limit the damage.

If the GOP went into this knowing that near-universal health care was going to happen, they could have made this bill dramatically different with an approach to universal health care that was more palatable to them.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2010, 09:20 AM
The sticking point the GOP refused to budge on was the idea of universal health care. They should have known it was going to happen come hell or high water, and worked to limit the damage.

If the GOP went into this knowing that near-universal health care was going to happen, they could have made this bill dramatically different with an approach to universal health care that was more palatable to them.

I'm glad they had integrity for a change and stuck to principals. For all we know, though, many of them were posturing in order to gain back power based on what they saw in the polls. Then they would have fielded a more incremental bill that would just postpone the day or reckoning. The market ALWAYS has the last say. It will too.

The other redeeming feature of this—it will discredit the hard left of the D party as they will have to take all the blame. They've had power since 2006 and there's been no economic improvement, just more spending and the taxes will follow because cost projections are not likely to be close to accurate.

Let the shit hit the fan!

alnorth
03-22-2010, 09:27 AM
I'm glad they had integrity for a change and stuck to principals. For all we know, though, many of them were posturing in order to gain back power based on what they saw in the polls. Then they would have fielded a more incremental bill that would just postpone the day or reckoning. The market ALWAYS has the last say. It will too.

The other redeeming feature of this—it will discredit the hard left of the D party as they will have to take all the blame. They've had power since 2006 and there's been no economic improvement, just more spending and the taxes will follow because cost projections are not likely to be close to accurate.

Let the shit hit the fan!

They probably will win seats in November, but that was pretty much inevitable simply because the dems have a huge number to defend in an off-year.

I believe the GOP is dramatically over-estimating the electoral benefit. They might retake the house this year. Great, so what? If the economy comes back in 2 years, I don't see this issue sinking Obama in 2012, and losses of seats can always be won back later.

This health care bill is forever, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if 8 years from now the public decides they are either ok with or like the change and the Republicans receive no lasting credit whatsoever for opposing it. Instead they could be left wondering "what if?", at the lost opportunity to have a real influence on the funding, amount of coverage, limiting the expansion of medicaid, etc.

fan4ever
03-22-2010, 09:40 AM
The GOP gambled the entire future of the US health care system on the belief they could score total victory and defeat Obama in 2012. They lost, and lost big-time. They should have known that the risk for them was too great, but apparently they didn't care.

They could have compromised and made this bill far more conservative. Thanks to the blathering idiots on talk radio (Rush, Beck, Hannity, good job), the dems were forced to say "fine screw you guys then" and pass pretty much an irreversable left-wing vision of health care reform that will be with us forever. The only good thing is that it stopped short of a public option or single-payer, but that was no thanks to the GOP, it was only because of conservative dems.

The mistakes by the Republicans were made in the Bush years; hence the loss of seats and this situation unfolding; a Egomaniacal president, a ruthless speaker, and a senate and house corrupt enough to force this thing through for their own little sweetheart deals. I don't think fighting this thing tooth and nail was a mistake...and the Dems weren't interested in compromises, or at least not any real ones.

fan4ever
03-22-2010, 09:48 AM
I'm glad they had integrity for a change and stuck to principals. For all we know, though, many of them were posturing in order to gain back power based on what they saw in the polls. Then they would have fielded a more incremental bill that would just postpone the day or reckoning. The market ALWAYS has the last say. It will too.

The other redeeming feature of this—it will discredit the hard left of the D party as they will have to take all the blame. They've had power since 2006 and there's been no economic improvement, just more spending and the taxes will follow because cost projections are not likely to be close to accurate.

Let the shit hit the fan!

The economy is still going to suck in November and the public in general is pissed that this administration didn't attack the problem at hand (jobs) rather than spending the last 16 months on this bill. The Dems will have to face the music for both of these issues...and blaming Bush won't work.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 10:12 AM
Yeah it was sooooo easy to do all those Presidents failed because it was so easy to do. Some of those also had majorities in the congress. If it was so easy, why wasn't it accomplished under their presidencies?

The only one of those presidents who ever had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was FDR and I'm not sure he ever tried to pass anything like national health care insurance. In any event, he didn't have a population as softened by lifelong socialism and government dependence as we do today so it would have been a harder sell even then. In any event, didn't he do enough to get the socialist ball rolling?

The democrats have been campaigning on this issue for at least two decades now and they've been claiming that it's a popular issue in the polls among voters so this should have been a slam dunk. Obama's incompetence in the leadership area was what made this a freakishly narrow and incredibly divisive win.

I never said some Dems wern't also against those legislative bills, I was saying, my meaning was, that the majority of Republicans were against those bills and the majority of Democrats were for the bills.

You're still wrong in all three cases though. Here are the statistics:

Social Security of 1935 (http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html):
89% of democrats supported
76% of Republicans supported

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964):

65% of democrats supported
80% of Republicans supported


Medicare Act of 1965 (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Republicans_voted_Yes_on_the_Medicare_Act_of_1965):

81% of democrats supported
48% of Republicans supported (but only 49% opposed)


On this I agree. This has not been the change we were promised or hoped to see.

:toast:

patteeu
03-22-2010, 10:19 AM
You can't lay all the blame on Obama because from the get go Republicans have not supported hardly any of Obama's agenda. From the stimulus plan, cash for clunkers and even a watered down jobs bill. Hell they even bitched about his Afghanistan plan and now look stupid because it is working out pretty well.

You have to remember one of the reasons why the Dems swept into office in 2008 outside of hating Bush is because they are tired of Washington sitting on their ass and doing nothing.

So your idea of bipartisanship is "support me or fuck off". That's not my idea of bipartisanship. Obama hasn't been interested in bipartisanship because he knew he had huge margins in Congress and he shouldn't have needed it. But his failure of leadership squandered that congressional advantage. The combination of his lack of leadership and his unwillingness to work with Republican centrists has made the path he travels a lot more difficult.

The only bitching about his Afghanistan plan was about how long it took him to deal with the problem. He got more support from the GOP for Afghanistan once he finally made a decision than he did from his own party.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 10:29 AM
The GOP gambled the entire future of the US health care system on the belief they could score total victory and defeat Obama in 2012. They lost, and lost big-time. They should have known that the risk for them was too great, but apparently they didn't care.

They could have compromised and made this bill far more conservative. Thanks to the blathering idiots on talk radio (Rush, Beck, Hannity, good job), the dems were forced to say "fine screw you guys then" and pass pretty much an irreversable left-wing vision of health care reform that will be with us forever. The only good thing is that it stopped short of a public option or single-payer, but that was no thanks to the GOP, it was only because of conservative dems.

I disagree completely. The democrats had unstoppable majorities in both houses of Congress. The only way Republicans could have accomplished a bipartisan compromise here is if they sold their votes cheaper than conservative democrats ended up selling theirs. The result would have been a more liberal bill not a more conservative one. The GOP played the weak hand that they were dealt and they did better with it than anyone could have anticipated.

The sticking point the GOP refused to budge on was the idea of universal health care. They should have known it was going to happen come hell or high water, and worked to limit the damage.

If the GOP went into this knowing that near-universal health care was going to happen, they could have made this bill dramatically different with an approach to universal health care that was more palatable to them.

The focus should have been on health care costs, not on universal coverage. Universal coverage without cost containment is, at best, a short term bandaid not a solution that addresses the fundamental health care problem.

I'd have to see this "more palatable approach to universal coverage" to believe that there might have been opportunities for Republicans to influence the outcome.

dirk digler
03-22-2010, 11:25 AM
So your idea of bipartisanship is "support me or fuck off". That's not my idea of bipartisanship. Obama hasn't been interested in bipartisanship because he knew he had huge margins in Congress and he shouldn't have needed it. But his failure of leadership squandered that congressional advantage. The combination of his lack of leadership and his unwillingness to work with Republican centrists has made the path he travels a lot more difficult.

The only bitching about his Afghanistan plan was about how long it took him to deal with the problem. He got more support from the GOP for Afghanistan once he finally made a decision than he did from his own party.

Is that what I said? IMO Pelosi\Reid, Republicans and then Obama in that order are to blame for the lack of bipartianship. And he did try to work with moderate\liberal Republicans like Grassley and Snowe on the health care bill and he is working with Graham on the immigration bill.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 11:30 AM
Is that what I said? IMO Pelosi\Reid, Republicans and then Obama in that order are to blame for the lack of bipartianship. And he did try to work with moderate\liberal Republicans like Grassley and Snowe on the health care bill and he is working with Graham on the immigration bill.At the same time Grassley is working "with" Democrats he is tellling his constituents in a public setting that the government is planning on killing Grandma.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 12:12 PM
Is that what I said? IMO Pelosi\Reid, Republicans and then Obama in that order are to blame for the lack of bipartianship. And he did try to work with moderate\liberal Republicans like Grassley and Snowe on the health care bill and he is working with Graham on the immigration bill.

That's what it sounded like you said to me. I agree that democrats in the Congressional leadership are just as much to blame for the lack of partisanship as Obama, but it was Obama's lack of leadership and deferral to those democrats that led to the result. I don't give him the pass for that that you do. Obama's token gestures to try to lure a soft Republican vote or two were pathetic. When George W. Bush was reaching out to democrats, he was reaching out to people like Ted Kennedy and asking them to help write the legislation. Obama's gesture, by contrast would have been like GWBush reaching out to Joe Leiberman after the legislation was 95% done.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 12:48 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>How GOP can rebound from its 'Waterloo'

By David Frum, Special to CNN




STORY HIGHLIGHTS

David Frum says Republicans suffered a big defeat with passage of health care
Frum says it's not realistic to think the bill's benefits, which will be popular, can be repealed
He says GOP can pledge to stave off higher taxes and more regulation of small businesses
Frum: Strategy served interests of talk radio by whipping up anger but led GOP astray

RELATED TOPICS

U.S. Republican Party (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Republican_Party)
Health Insurance (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Health_Insurance)
Paul Ryan (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Paul_Ryan)
Barack Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama)
Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, he was special assistant to President Bush in 2001-2. He is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again" and the editor of FrumForum (http://www.frumforum.com/).


Washington (CNN) -- What the hell do we Republicans do now?
In the very short run, our course is obvious enough: There will be more votes on health care in the Senate, and we will vote nay again. But this is anti-climax territory. The decisive vote occurred Sunday night.

The "what next?" question pertains to the days further ahead, after President Obama signs the merged House-Senate legislation and "Obamacare" becomes the law of the land.

Some Republicans talk of repealing the whole bill. That's not very realistic. Even supposing that Republicans miraculously capture both houses of Congress in November, repeal will require a presidential signature.

More relevantly: Do Republicans write a one-sentence bill declaring that the whole thing is repealed? Will they vote to reopen the "doughnut" hole for prescription drugs for seniors? To allow health insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? To kick millions of people off Medicaid?

It's unimaginable, impossible.

But there are things that can be done, and here are some early priorities:

1) One of the worst things about the Democrats' plan is the method of financing: an increase in income taxes. The top rate of tax was already scheduled to jump to 39.6 percent at the end of this year. Now a surtax of 5.4 percent will be stacked atop that higher rate. At first, the surtax bites only very high incomes: $500,000 for individuals. But that tax will surely be applied to larger and larger portions of the American population over time.

Republicans (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Republican_Party) champion lower taxes and faster economic growth. We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of this surtax -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes.

2) We should quit defending employment-based health care. The leading Republican spokesman in the House on these issues, Rep. Paul Ryan (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Paul_Ryan), repeatedly complained during floor debate that the Obama plan would "dump" people out of employer-provided care into the exchanges. He said that as if it were a bad thing.

Yet free-market economists from Milton Friedman onward have identified employer-provided care as the original sin of American health care. Employers choose different policies for employees than those employees would choose for themselves. The cost is concealed.

Wages are depressed without employees understanding why. The day when every employee in America gets his or her insurance (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Health_Insurance) through an exchange will be a good day for market economics. It's true that the exchanges are subsidized. So is employer-provided care, to the tune of almost $200 billion a year.

3) We should call for reducing regulation of the policies sold inside the health care exchanges. The Democrats' plans require every policy sold within the exchanges to meet certain strict conditions.

American workers will lose the option of buying more basic but cheaper plans. It will be as if the only cable packages available were those that include all the premium channels. No bargains in that case. Republicans should press for more scope for insurers to cut prices if they think they can offer an attractive product that way.

4) The Democratic plan requires businesses with payrolls more than $500,000 to buy health insurance for their workers or face fines of $2,000 per worker. Could there be a worse time to heap this new mandate on smaller employers? Health insurance comes out of employee wages, plain and simple. Employers who do not offer health insurance must compete for labor against those who do -- and presumably pay equivalent wages for equivalent work.
Uninsured employees have now through the exchanges been provided an easy and even subsidized way to buy their own coverage. There is no justification for the small-business fine: Republicans should press for repeal.
That platform is ambitious enough -- but also workable, enactable and likely to appeal to voters. After 18 months of overheated rhetoric, it's time at last for Republicans to get real.

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes, it mobilizes supporters -- but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

Now the overheated talk is about to get worse. Over the past 48 hours, I've heard conservatives compare the House bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- a decisive step on the path to the Civil War. Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.

Or almost all. The vitriolic talking heads on conservative talk radio and shock TV have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination.

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama) to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say -- but what is equally true -- is that he also wants Republicans to fail.

If Republicans succeed -- if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office -- Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less and hear fewer ads for Sleep Number beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished.
For the cause they purport to represent, however, the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here-->
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc>http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn></TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html?hpt=T2)

</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

patteeu
03-22-2010, 12:52 PM
David Frum, the left's favorite quasi-conservative.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 12:55 PM
David Frum, the left's favorite quasi-conservative.so a conservative that you don't like what he wrote = an Obama lackey?

The truth hurts. It wasn't Obama's waterloo but the Republicans. The Republicans need to figure out a way to be meaniful again other than to say no. With the Republicans base becoming whiter and whiter I just don't know how they will compete nationally.

Just look at the pictures of the party...Just a bunch of old white guys.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/t1larg.health.gop.comment.afpgi.jpg

Mr. Kotter
03-22-2010, 12:57 PM
David Frum, the left's favorite quasi-conservative.

Translation: "He's not Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or some other similar ideological demagogue, therefore he's not a 'real' conservative."

penchief
03-22-2010, 01:03 PM
David Frum, the left's favorite quasi-conservative.

I've never liked the guy much which is why I was surprised how much this article agreed with my thinking.

That said, pretty soon there aren't going to be many conservatives left at all if you keep disowning every one who doesn't conform the the extreme views of the radical right.

Iowanian
03-22-2010, 01:12 PM
BigRedObama can only hope newfound healthcare bill covers...blisters from excessive masturbation.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 01:35 PM
BigRedObama can only hope newfound healthcare bill covers...blisters from excessive masturbation.It's in there, I checked but only if your injured while looking at this...
http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/PYR/PP31738.jpg

patteeu
03-22-2010, 01:41 PM
so a conservative that you don't like what he wrote = an Obama lackey?

The truth hurts. It wasn't Obama's waterloo but the Republicans. The Republicans need to figure out a way to be meaniful again other than to say no. With the Republicans base becoming whiter and whiter I just don't know how they will compete nationally.

Just look at the pictures of the party...Just a bunch of old white guys.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/t1larg.health.gop.comment.afpgi.jpg

What do you have against white guys? Was stevieray right about you with his "white guilt" comment?

The truth only hurts in that we've been saddled with big tax increases in the short term and another budget busting big government program in the long term, but it's wishful thinking on your part to call this a Republican waterloo. The big losers in this are mostly moderate democrats from mostly red districts/states in Congress. Goodbye.

I didn't say anything about Frum being an Obama lackey, btw. He's just not a representative of mainstream conservatism (or Ron Paul conservatism for that matter). He's the Republican's Pat Cadell.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 01:42 PM
Translation: "He's not Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or some other similar ideological demagogue, therefore he's not a 'real' conservative."

He's not a real conservative. That's right. I don't know if he loves big government as much as you do, but he's at least on friendly terms with it.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 01:45 PM
BigRedObama can only hope newfound healthcare bill covers...blisters from excessive masturbation.

Who could have guessed that BigRedChief would become a big cheerleader for Obama's "victory" after it's passage?

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 01:48 PM
What do you have against white guys? Was stevieray right about you with his "white guilt" comment?

The truth only hurts in that we've been saddled with big tax increases in the short term and another budget busting big government program in the long term, but it's wishful thinking on your part to call this a Republican waterloo. The big losers in this are mostly moderate democrats from mostly red districts/states in Congress. Goodbye.

I didn't say anything about Frum being an Obama lackey, btw. He's just not a representative of mainstream conservatism (or Ron Paul conservatism for that matter). He's the Republican's Pat Cadell.I no longer have white guilt I voted for Obama. :rolleyes:

Look at the crowds at the tea party's? All the Republican members of Congress, the local leaders...White. thats not a concidence. the party doesn't lend itself to diversity and are not raching out to other age groups and ethinicties. Does that not bother you that the Republican party base is what....95% white?

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 01:51 PM
Who could have guessed that BigRedChief would become a big cheerleader for Obama's "victory" after it's passage?I've said I'm not happy for some of the stuff in it and would have like to have seen something different passed but I am happy to see Obama kick azz and take names. He needed to man up and get something done. He needs to man up and take on entitlment reform and illegal immigration reform now. Show some gahones and take on the 3rd rail.

Iowanian
03-22-2010, 02:03 PM
You say that, but you've been tongue juggling Obama's balls looking for any reason to high five his ideas all along. You play the middle and then claim victory on subjects like this one.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 02:07 PM
You say that, but you've been tongue juggling Obama's balls looking for any reason to high five his ideas all along. You play the middle and then claim victory on subjects like this one.Maybe I'm a closet gay and secretly like Juggling balls?

You really think I can distance myself from Obama? I can make a thread listing my disappointments with his actions but I still supported him. Just like the "conservatives" on here now supported George W.. all they can do is admit a mistake, not deny support at the time.

I want some real friggin change not Bs PR change but real change as I mentioned in the post right above here.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 02:26 PM
I no longer have white guilt I voted for Obama. :rolleyes:

Look at the crowds at the tea party's? All the Republican members of Congress, the local leaders...White. thats not a concidence. the party doesn't lend itself to diversity and are not raching out to other age groups and ethinicties. Does that not bother you that the Republican party base is what....95% white?

It bothers me that democrats are so willing to race bait.

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 02:29 PM
It bothers me that democrats are so willing to race bait.I'm not race baiting. I'm being real. Just because the fact 95% of the group is white doesn't mean they are racist. No one with intelligence is saying that. I think its a valid point. How can any political party govern from a majoity point of view with a 95% white face?

patteeu
03-22-2010, 02:32 PM
I'm not race baiting. I'm being real. Just because the fact 95% of the group is white doesn't mean they are racist. No one with intelligence is saying that. I think its a valid point. How can any political party govern from a majoity point of view with a 95% white face?

Anyone who argues that the Republican party doesn't "lend itself to diversity" is race baiting, although to be fair, other democrats are more egregious practitioners than you are. There's nothing about the Republican party that is anti-black or anti-ethnic. There's just not as much pandering in the form of special treatment.

Mr. Kotter
03-22-2010, 02:33 PM
Anyone who argues that the Republican party doesn't "lend itself to diversity" is race baiting, although to be fair, other democrats are more egregious practitioners than you are.

Yeah, I know what you mean; Republicans have never, ever been involved in race-baiting.

:rolleyes:

patteeu
03-22-2010, 02:37 PM
Yeah, I know what you mean; Republicans have never, ever been involved in race-baiting.

:rolleyes:

You're smarter than dottefan.

Mr. Kotter
03-22-2010, 02:39 PM
You're smarter than dottefan.

Who? :spock:

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 05:38 PM
Anyone who argues that the Republican party doesn't "lend itself to diversity" is race baiting, although to be fair, other democrats are more egregious practitioners than you are. There's nothing about the Republican party that is anti-black or anti-ethnic. There's just not as much pandering in the form of special treatment.I can agree with all those statements. I realize that Democrats are trying to be a big tent party and Republicans are trying to "purify" the party. I don't think that Republicans are trying to keep out ethnic or relgious groups. I was just making an observation. A truism, a fact and what that means going forward for the Republicans.

alnorth
03-22-2010, 05:43 PM
I disagree completely. The democrats had unstoppable majorities in both houses of Congress. The only way Republicans could have accomplished a bipartisan compromise here is if they sold their votes cheaper than conservative democrats ended up selling theirs. The result would have been a more liberal bill not a more conservative one. The GOP played the weak hand that they were dealt and they did better with it than anyone could have anticipated.

You dont know that. The GOP didn't even try, they went into it like a Vegas high-roller willing to bet the farm on red.

First of all the premise itself is not believable. Bill passed only by dems is more conservative than a bill that attracts republican votes? On what planet? The GOP did not bargain in good faith. They knew that the one, single, only non-negotiable aspect was near-universal coverage. Everything else was on the table, but UHC could not be touched, and they should have known the dems had the votes to back up this demand.

On top of that, Obama was practically frantic to get a lot of GOP votes. There's no telling what he would have been willing to give away to get GOP support for a bill that still preserves the principle of UHC, but is dramatically different elsewhere. No, after the Scott Brown victory, the GOP thought they had all the cards and basically demanded that the Dems, not compromise, but throw out all their principles and surrender to the GOP plan. The GOP wasn't looking for a bi-partisan plan, they were looking for total victory because they didnt think the Dems had the votes. That is the very definition of political stupidity.

The focus should have been on health care costs, not on universal coverage. Universal coverage without cost containment is, at best, a short term bandaid not a solution that addresses the fundamental health care problem.

Great. Maybe the GOP could have bargained in good faith for UHC + stronger cost controls, but hell no. UHC was utterly unnacceptable to the GOP, and for some reason they thought they were in no danger of seeing the left-wing UHC solution become law.

vailpass
03-22-2010, 05:48 PM
I'm not race baiting. I'm being real. Just because the fact 95% of the group is white doesn't mean they are racist. No one with intelligence is saying that. I think its a valid point. How can any political party govern from a majoity point of view with a 95% white face?

Please.

alnorth
03-22-2010, 05:48 PM
David Frum, one of the last republicans who dont worship at the alter of Glenn Beck.

FYP

orange
03-22-2010, 05:58 PM
http://radioactiveliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/Obama-Waterloo.jpg


Cross the river. Tomorrow Today we will dry our boots in Brussels.

fan4ever
03-22-2010, 06:03 PM
Yeah, I can see why the black community goes with the Democrats. With constantly higher rates of incarceration, teen pregnancy, single motherhood, drug use, black on black crime, gang violence and more, why would they ever want to change leadership?

patteeu
03-22-2010, 08:03 PM
I can agree with all those statements. I realize that Democrats are trying to be a big tent party and Republicans are trying to "purify" the party. I don't think that Republicans are trying to keep out ethnic or relgious groups. I was just making an observation. A truism, a fact and what that means going forward for the Republicans.

Republican's aren't trying to purify their party any more than democrats are. There are big tent factions and purity factions in both parties. The health care bill is likely to be a purifying event for democrats and it's likely to lead to a net moderate gain in the Republican party.

Furthermore, most Republicans who are trying to purify the party aren't trying to purify it in a racial sense by any stretch of the imagination. Republicans view skin color with colorblind eyes. So the degree to which there is a purity faction within the party seems pretty irrelevant to your observation, IMO

patteeu
03-22-2010, 08:18 PM
You dont know that.

Of course, I could say the same about your theory.

The GOP didn't even try, they went into it like a Vegas high-roller willing to bet the farm on red.

First of all the premise itself is not believable. Bill passed only by dems is more conservative than a bill that attracts republican votes? On what planet? The GOP did not bargain in good faith. They knew that the one, single, only non-negotiable aspect was near-universal coverage. Everything else was on the table, but UHC could not be touched, and they should have known the dems had the votes to back up this demand.

On the planet where you have the votes within your own party for passage of a baseline bill. I think your theory makes far less sense. Were you calling for this approach 6 months ago?

On top of that, Obama was practically frantic to get a lot of GOP votes. There's no telling what he would have been willing to give away to get GOP support for a bill that still preserves the principle of UHC, but is dramatically different elsewhere. No, after the Scott Brown victory, the GOP thought they had all the cards and basically demanded that the Dems, not compromise, but throw out all their principles and surrender to the GOP plan. The GOP wasn't looking for a bi-partisan plan, they were looking for total victory because they didnt think the Dems had the votes. That is the very definition of political stupidity.

You're contradicting yourself if you're suggesting that it was the Scott Brown victory that made the GOP overconfident. By then it was far too late to do what you claim they should have done. At that point, the choice was between getting on board with the democrat plan or staying the course. The Republicans chose the right side of that decision tree. You may not realize this, but the televised summit between Obama and a bipartisan group of Congresspeople was a stage show, not a real effort on the part of Obama to work out a compromise.

Great. Maybe the GOP could have bargained in good faith for UHC + stronger cost controls, but hell no. UHC was utterly unnacceptable to the GOP, and for some reason they thought they were in no danger of seeing the left-wing UHC solution become law.

I don't know where you get the idea that Republicans thought they were in no danger of seeing a left-wing UHC solution become law. With the large democrat majorities in both houses of Congress there was danger of all kinds throughout the process. And while you apparently think democrats were ready to fall all over themselves to compromise with a powerless minority when they didn't really have to, I think most astute observers know better. As it turned out, Republican efforts to use the only weapon they had, i.e. public opinion, succeeded in preventing single payer and the public option. I doubt they could have accomplished as much if they'd followed your prescription. Clearly, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 08:21 PM
alnorth, one of the last Republicans to agree with David Frum

FYP

Bill Parcells
03-22-2010, 08:22 PM
Who could have guessed that BigRedChief would become a big cheerleader for Obama's "victory" after it's passage?

Have you noticed Direckshun hired a crane to lift the boulder hes been hiding under for over a year now?

BigRedChief
03-22-2010, 09:01 PM
Republican's aren't trying to purify their party any more than democrats are. There are big tent factions and purity factions in both parties. The health care bill is likely to be a purifying event for democrats and it's likely to lead to a net moderate gain in the Republican party.

Furthermore, most Republicans who are trying to purify the party aren't trying to purify it in a racial sense by any stretch of the imagination. Republicans view skin color with colorblind eyes. So the degree to which there is a purity faction within the party seems pretty irrelevant to your observation, IMOWhatever dude, bury your head in the sand. Its an issue and question you are going to have to answer. You can marginalize my opinion but you won't be able to marginalize everyones opinion.

Dottefan
03-22-2010, 09:06 PM
This thread sucks...can we eat ice cream now..please.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 09:35 PM
Have you noticed Direckshun hired a crane to lift the boulder hes been hiding under for over a year now?

He apparently lost interest in the health care issue when the debate over it ended oh so many months ago.

alnorth
03-22-2010, 11:39 PM
On the planet where you have the votes within your own party for passage of a baseline bill. I think your theory makes far less sense. Were you calling for this approach 6 months ago?

The same planet where despite the majority, Obama was desperate for significant (not token) republican support without giving up on UHC. There wouldn't have even been any harm in trying. You ask for what you can get in a world where UHC is the law, the dems say "no, but it would be really cool if you voted for this", then you've lost nothing. Thank you very much, I guess you dems weren't serious about negotiating after all, we are going to war.

Instead the GOP thought they could block the bill and had nothing to worry about. The house would never pass the senate bill, so we win, right?

To the last question, pretty much, yes. I had assumed that either 1) the GOP would know for sure that they were safe to blanket oppose or 2) if they knew the dems probably had the votes, they would limit the damage. Neither happened because the GOP is run by a pack of morons.

You're contradicting yourself if you're suggesting that it was the Scott Brown victory that made the GOP overconfident. By then it was far too late to do what you claim they should have done. At that point, the choice was between getting on board with the democrat plan or staying the course. The Republicans chose the right side of that decision tree. You may not realize this, but the televised summit between Obama and a bipartisan group of Congresspeople was a stage show, not a real effort on the part of Obama to work out a compromise.

After the Scott Brown victory, Obama (according to interviews with officials) was actually ready to give up and go with a lesser bill. Pelosi eventually convinced him to try one more time, but this was the perfect time to step up and say "well big guy, we won a pretty significant victory. We get that you want UHC, fine, let's talk because we want a lot of things too."

That couldnt happen because the talk radio idiots had already made compromise politically impossible by then. You cant compromise with a Kenyan Muslim who wants to kill grandma.

As it turned out, Republican efforts to use the only weapon they had, i.e. public opinion, succeeded in preventing single payer and the public option. I doubt they could have accomplished as much if they'd followed your prescription.

single-payer and public option isn't even relevent to this discussion. Those two left-wing dreams were DOA, but not because of the GOP. The dems had enough senators (as in, more than zero) who were flat-out opposed to this. Sorry, but the GOP can claim no credit AT ALL for stopping single-payer and public option.

With the GOP's shockingly stupid approach to this situation, the left wing achieved the absolute best their own party possibly could have gotten, without needing to compromise for the political cover of attracting GOP votes. Again, the idea that making this bill MORE liberal would have attracted GOP votes?... how? why? makes no sense.

penchief
03-23-2010, 06:52 AM
Anyone who argues that the Republican party doesn't "lend itself to diversity" is race baiting, although to be fair, other democrats are more egregious practitioners than you are. There's nothing about the Republican party that is anti-black or anti-ethnic. There's just not as much pandering in the form of special treatment.

Pandering? Some would say that representing the interests of all its constituents no matter what color is the job of representative government.

I see your point, though. The only color that republicans cater to is green. Corporate green, to be exact.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 06:53 AM
The same planet where despite the majority, Obama was desperate for significant (not token) republican support without giving up on UHC. There wouldn't have even been any harm in trying. You ask for what you can get in a world where UHC is the law, the dems say "no, but it would be really cool if you voted for this", then you've lost nothing. Thank you very much, I guess you dems weren't serious about negotiating after all, we are going to war.

Instead the GOP thought they could block the bill and had nothing to worry about. The house would never pass the senate bill, so we win, right?

To the last question, pretty much, yes. I had assumed that either 1) the GOP would know for sure that they were safe to blanket oppose or 2) if they knew the dems probably had the votes, they would limit the damage. Neither happened because the GOP is run by a pack of morons.



After the Scott Brown victory, Obama (according to interviews with officials) was actually ready to give up and go with a lesser bill. Pelosi eventually convinced him to try one more time, but this was the perfect time to step up and say "well big guy, we won a pretty significant victory. We get that you want UHC, fine, let's talk because we want a lot of things too."

That couldnt happen because the talk radio idiots had already made compromise politically impossible by then. You cant compromise with a Kenyan Muslim who wants to kill grandma.



single-payer and public option isn't even relevent to this discussion. Those two left-wing dreams were DOA, but not because of the GOP. The dems had enough senators (as in, more than zero) who were flat-out opposed to this. Sorry, but the GOP can claim no credit AT ALL for stopping single-payer and public option.

With the GOP's shockingly stupid approach to this situation, the left wing achieved the absolute best their own party possibly could have gotten, without needing to compromise for the political cover of attracting GOP votes. Again, the idea that making this bill MORE liberal would have attracted GOP votes?... how? why? makes no sense.

I'm just thankful that you aren't leading the GOP. I couldn't disagree more with your analysis nor with your petty slurs.

And it's not that a more liberal bill would have attracted GOP votes, it's that too much willingness to compromise would have short circuited some of the concessions that Obama/Pelosi/Reid had to ultimately make to get a deal through Congress. How can you not even understand the argument?

patteeu
03-23-2010, 06:54 AM
Pandering? Some would say that representing the interests of all its constituents no matter what color is the job of representative government.

I see your point, though. The only color republicans cater to is green. Corporate green, to be exact.

Yes, pandering. As I said yesterday in a different thread, the democrat party brings people of all races (who want handouts) together.

penchief
03-23-2010, 07:09 AM
Yes, pandering. As I said yesterday in a different thread, the democrat party brings people of all races (who want handouts) together.

The point being that pandering goes on with both parties. It's the differences that our telling.

By the way, not all attempts to level the playing field or advance equal opportunity, equal access, or equal justice are by default handouts.

So one party panders to the powerless masses while the other panders to the powerful few. In your opinion, which one is truest to the purpose of representative government or the ideals of universal liberty and justice for all?

patteeu
03-23-2010, 07:14 AM
The point being that pandering goes on with both parties. It's the differences that our telling.

By the way, not all attempts to level the playing field or advance equal opportunity, equal access, or equal justice are by default handouts.

So one party panders to the powerless masses while the other panders to the powerful few. In your opinion, which one is truest to the purpose of representative government or the ideals of universal liberty and justice for all?

We're talking about race here. There might be some minor pandering here and there by the Republican party toward racial groups, but there's really no comparison. IOW, it doesn't go on in both parties.

dirk digler
03-23-2010, 07:37 AM
The same planet where despite the majority, Obama was desperate for significant (not token) republican support without giving up on UHC. There wouldn't have even been any harm in trying. You ask for what you can get in a world where UHC is the law, the dems say "no, but it would be really cool if you voted for this", then you've lost nothing. Thank you very much, I guess you dems weren't serious about negotiating after all, we are going to war.

Instead the GOP thought they could block the bill and had nothing to worry about. The house would never pass the senate bill, so we win, right?

To the last question, pretty much, yes. I had assumed that either 1) the GOP would know for sure that they were safe to blanket oppose or 2) if they knew the dems probably had the votes, they would limit the damage. Neither happened because the GOP is run by a pack of morons.



After the Scott Brown victory, Obama (according to interviews with officials) was actually ready to give up and go with a lesser bill. Pelosi eventually convinced him to try one more time, but this was the perfect time to step up and say "well big guy, we won a pretty significant victory. We get that you want UHC, fine, let's talk because we want a lot of things too."

That couldnt happen because the talk radio idiots had already made compromise politically impossible by then. You cant compromise with a Kenyan Muslim who wants to kill grandma.

single-payer and public option isn't even relevent to this discussion. Those two left-wing dreams were DOA, but not because of the GOP. The dems had enough senators (as in, more than zero) who were flat-out opposed to this. Sorry, but the GOP can claim no credit AT ALL for stopping single-payer and public option.

With the GOP's shockingly stupid approach to this situation, the left wing achieved the absolute best their own party possibly could have gotten, without needing to compromise for the political cover of attracting GOP votes. Again, the idea that making this bill MORE liberal would have attracted GOP votes?... how? why? makes no sense.

You are absolutely dead on with your analysis alnorth.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 07:39 AM
You are absolutely dead on with your analysis alnorth.

LMAO I rest my case.

dirk digler
03-23-2010, 07:44 AM
LMAO I rest my case.

What part of it do you disagree with?

penchief
03-23-2010, 08:04 AM
We're talking about race here. There might be some minor pandering here and there by the Republican party toward racial groups, but there's really no comparison. IOW, it doesn't go on in both parties.

But you're suggesting that democrats pander to race when it is just as likely that they are pandering to their constituency (people of all races). Recognizing the unique circumstances that confront each race is a valuable attribute to possess. Advocating for measures that address inequities does not necessarily mean that they are pandering to race but rather the ideal of equal opportunity and equal justice for all, regardless of race.

Only someone with a self-serving world view would be unable to recognize the inequities that some of our citizens face because of race. And only selfish motives would prevent them from wanting to address those inequities.

And that is where we are in this country. One party panders to the citizenry and is unapologetic for its advocacy of issues pertinent to racial justice. Therefore, that party is accused of pandering to race. While the other party views any attempt to alter the status quo by advancing the causes of social justice as an affront to their power and privilege. Therefore, they are accused of pandering to the the elite.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 08:22 AM
What part of it do you disagree with?

Pretty much all of it. My position is in post 89.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 08:25 AM
But you're suggesting that democrats pander to race when it is just as likely that they are pandering to their constituency (people of all races). Recognizing the unique circumstances that confront each race is a valuable attribute to possess. Advocating for measures that address inequities does not necessarily mean that they are pandering to race but rather the ideal of equal opportunity and equal justice for all, regardless of race.

Only someone with a self-serving world view would be unable to recognize the inequities that some of our citizens face because of race. And only selfish motives would prevent them from wanting to address those inequities.

And that is where we are in this country. One party panders to the citizenry and is unapologetic for its advocacy of issues pertinent to racial justice. Therefore, that party is accused of pandering to race. While the other party views any attempt to alter the status quo by advancing the causes of social justice as an affront to their power and privilege. Therefore, they are accused of pandering to the the elite.

No, it's pandering to race.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 08:38 AM
The same planet where despite the majority, Obama was desperate for significant (not token) republican support without giving up on UHC. There wouldn't have even been any harm in trying. You ask for what you can get in a world where UHC is the law, the dems say "no, but it would be really cool if you voted for this", then you've lost nothing. Thank you very much, I guess you dems weren't serious about negotiating after all, we are going to war.

Instead the GOP thought they could block the bill and had nothing to worry about. The house would never pass the senate bill, so we win, right?

To the last question, pretty much, yes. I had assumed that either 1) the GOP would know for sure that they were safe to blanket oppose or 2) if they knew the dems probably had the votes, they would limit the damage. Neither happened because the GOP is run by a pack of morons.

After the Scott Brown victory, Obama (according to interviews with officials) was actually ready to give up and go with a lesser bill. Pelosi eventually convinced him to try one more time, but this was the perfect time to step up and say "well big guy, we won a pretty significant victory. We get that you want UHC, fine, let's talk because we want a lot of things too."

That couldnt happen because the talk radio idiots had already made compromise politically impossible by then. You cant compromise with a Kenyan Muslim who wants to kill grandma.

single-payer and public option isn't even relevent to this discussion. Those two left-wing dreams were DOA, but not because of the GOP. The dems had enough senators (as in, more than zero) who were flat-out opposed to this. Sorry, but the GOP can claim no credit AT ALL for stopping single-payer and public option.

With the GOP's shockingly stupid approach to this situation, the left wing achieved the absolute best their own party possibly could have gotten, without needing to compromise for the political cover of attracting GOP votes. Again, the idea that making this bill MORE liberal would have attracted GOP votes?... how? why? makes no sense.


I'm just thankful that you aren't leading the GOP. I couldn't disagree more with your analysis nor with your petty slurs.

And it's not that a more liberal bill would have attracted GOP votes, it's that too much willingness to compromise would have short circuited some of the concessions that Obama/Pelosi/Reid had to ultimately make to get a deal through Congress. How can you not even understand the argument?

alnorth is what you get when you have an independent minded conservative analyzing the facts as they are....as opposed to folks like patty/HCF/CF/others being spoon-fed talking points and demagoguery from the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck triumvirate of plutocratic propaganda, hate, and shame.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 08:46 AM
alnorth is what you get when you have an independent minded conservative analyzing the facts as they are....as opposed to folks like patty/HCF/CF/others being spoon-fed talking points and demagoguery from the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck triumvirate of plutocratic propaganda, hate, and shame.

I'm pretty comfortable not having you and dirk agreeing with me.

penchief
03-23-2010, 08:52 AM
No, it's pandering to race.

Yawn...

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 09:17 AM
I'm pretty comfortable not having you and dirk agreeing with me.

I'm sure the rest of the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck android army of anti-government hate-mongers keep you plenty of company, because even as a marginalized "fringe" their raw numbers are impressive.

Heck, they'd even be formidable politically if anyone actually believed they understood the reasoning behind their zealotry....rather than being bamboozled by the Trinity of Talk Radio at whose alter you and other dittoheads so fervently worship.

I guess having others think for you is a whole lot easier when you are so busy with life though.

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2010, 09:18 AM
We'll have to bump this in November.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2010, 09:19 AM
We'll have to bump this in November.


Indeed. :thumb:

patteeu
03-23-2010, 09:25 AM
What do we get when Republicans read the political tea leaves and decide to work with democrats in order to pass a smaller, less offensive version of a big government program that they think is inevitable? We get something like GWBush's prescription drug program where Republicans become complicit, give democrats political cover, and end up in a much weaker position if reforms prove desirable. And that's when Republicans have the political clout to matter. In this case they were playing a far weaker hand.

And what happens a few years down the road? The smaller program becomes a bigger program anyway. (See the closing of the doughnut hole in today's new health care law).

dirk digler
03-23-2010, 09:33 AM
Pretty much all of it. My position is in post 89.

Yeah I read it. It was pretty much crap but you get a cookie for the weak effort. :)

patteeu
03-23-2010, 09:35 AM
I'm sure the rest of the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck android army of anti-government hate-mongers keep you plenty of company, because even as a marginalized "fringe" their raw numbers are impressive.

Heck, they'd even be formidable politically if anyone actually believed they understood the reasoning behind their zealotry....rather than being bamboozled by the Trinity of Talk Radio at whose alter you and other dittoheads so fervently worship.

I guess having others think for you is a whole lot easier when you are so busy with life though.

Keep me informed on this important topic. Meanwhile, I hope you don't shed too many tears when health insurance executives continue to live the high life and you're stuck in that job that can't satisfy your greed.

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2010, 09:35 AM
What do we get when Republicans read the political tea leaves and decide to work with democrats in order to pass a smaller, less offensive version of a big government program that they think is inevitable? We get something like GWBush's prescription drug program where Republicans become complicit, give democrats political cover, and end up in a much weaker position if reforms prove desirable. And that's when Republicans have the political clout to matter. In this case they were playing a far weaker hand.

And what happens a few years down the road? The smaller program becomes a bigger program anyway. (See the closing of the doughnut hole in today's new health care law).

15,000 new Browncoats on the IRS payroll---

Banyon must have rubbed his penis raw when this thing passed.

ROFL

dirk digler
03-23-2010, 09:38 AM
What do we get when Republicans read the political tea leaves and decide to work with democrats in order to pass a smaller, less offensive version of a big government program that they think is inevitable? We get something like GWBush's prescription drug program where Republicans become complicit, give democrats political cover, and end up in a much weaker position if reforms prove desirable. And that's when Republicans have the political clout to matter. In this case they were playing a far weaker hand.

And what happens a few years down the road? The smaller program becomes a bigger program anyway. (See the closing of the doughnut hole in today's new health care law).

I don't know about smaller. The Medicare bill cost over $1.2 trillion in 10 years where the health care bill is projected to be around $940 billion. Of course we have you to thank for that along with your Republican friends. I am just thankful that the Dems and Obama decided to clean up the mess and fix it. ;)

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 09:40 AM
We'll have to bump this in November.You think the people hate the dems? You are wrong. They will see whats really in the bill not the BS lies and the economy will improve. Teh people hate the Republicans worse, so don't get your hopes up.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 09:44 AM
I don't know about smaller. The Medicare bill cost over $1.2 trillion in 10 years where the health care bill is projected to be around $940 billion. Of course we have you to thank for that along with your Republican friends. I am just thankful that the Dems and Obama decided to clean up the mess and fix it. ;)

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. The democrats wanted a bigger prescription drug bill at the time and now they've accomplished making it bigger. They'll attempt to do the same with the current health care bill. It's not the last step, it's just the next step in the march toward ever-bigger government and ever-greater deficit spending. And the projections will inevitably prove to underestimate the cost. George W. Bush was n1ggard compared to Barack Obama and his squandering band big spending democrats.

Cave Johnson
03-23-2010, 09:47 AM
As it turned out, Republican efforts to use the only weapon they had, i.e. public opinion, succeeded in preventing single payer and the public option. I doubt they could have accomplished as much if they'd followed your prescription. Clearly, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Conservative Democrats, particularly in the Senate (where they were trying to get a filibuster-proof majority), blocked the public option. Not Republicans.

And the projections will inevitably prove to underestimate the cost. George W. Bush was n1ggard compared to Barack Obama and his squandering band big spending democrats.

Good luck in bringing that word back into acceptable usage.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 09:48 AM
Conservative Democrats, particularly in the Senate (where they were trying to get a filibuster-proof majority), blocked the public option. Not Republicans.

Duh. That's my point. By taking the approach Republicans took, conservative democrats extracted the maximum amount of concessions possible. If a few Republicans had signed on to a bill that required fewer concessions, thereby eliminating the need to lure those last few democrats, we would have ended up with a less desirable bill, more cover for democrats, a weaker case for pursuing reforms, and the tar of complicity.

dirk digler
03-23-2010, 10:06 AM
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. The democrats wanted a bigger prescription drug bill at the time and now they've accomplished making it bigger. They'll attempt to do the same with the current health care bill. It's not the last step, it's just the next step in the march toward ever-bigger government and ever-greater deficit spending. And the projections will inevitably prove to underestimate the cost. George W. Bush was n1ggard compared to Barack Obama and his squandering band big spending democrats.

It is obvious this bill passed entirely by Dems is smaller and fixes the huge donut hole than the Medicare Bill passed almost solely by Republicans and signed by your hero GW Bush. Let's not forget how the Republicans had to threaten people from revealing how much this was really going cost and had to leave the vote open for hours just to get it to pass. You guys did a great job.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 10:16 AM
It is obvious this bill passed entirely by Dems is smaller and fixes the huge donut hole than the Medicare Bill passed almost solely by Republicans and signed by your hero GW Bush. Let's not forget how the Republicans had to threaten people from revealing how much this was really going cost and had to leave the vote open for hours just to get it to pass. You guys did a great job.

It's ON TOP OF the prescription drug entitlement not a replacement for it. You add the doughnut hole "fix" to the prescription drug entitlement to get the new entitlement which is obviously quite a bit bigger. The democrats wanted a more costly program then and they finally succeeded in getting a more costly program. The democrats have always been more profligate spenders.

Furthermore, although it's irrelevant to the point we're discussing, it's not obvious that the dem's health care bill is smaller. Projections like this are inevitably exceeded. When Bush proposed his program, the projections said it was going to cost a little over $500 billion.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 10:18 AM
Good luck in bringing that word back into acceptable usage.

When did it leave?

dirk digler
03-23-2010, 10:22 AM
It's ON TOP OF the prescription drug entitlement not a replacement for it. You add the doughnut hole "fix" to the prescription drug entitlement to get the new entitlement which is obviously quite a bit bigger. The democrats wanted a more costly program then and they finally succeeded in getting a more costly program. The democrats have always been more profligate spenders.

Furthermore, although it's irrelevant to the point we're discussing, it's not obvious that the dem's health care bill is smaller. Projections like this are inevitably exceeded. When Bush proposed his program, the projections said it was going to cost a little over $500 billion.

I guess I am mis understanding you. In the health care bill that was passed it fixes the donut hole problem your friends created. The Dems wanted such a costly program 88% voted against it.

The reason why the projection was low (fixed) was because the meanie Reps threatened people not to reveal the real numbers so it would pass. :)

patteeu
03-23-2010, 10:34 AM
I guess I am mis understanding you. In the health care bill that was passed it fixes the donut hole problem your friends created. The Dems wanted such a costly program 88% voted against it.

The dems voted against it because they didn't agree with all the details and they wanted a bigger program. Now they've "fixed" it by making it bigger. If they were working from a clean slate they might have done some other things differently, but the point is that they wanted a bigger program then and they still want a bigger program today. It's really not that hard to understand. :)

The reason why the projection was low (fixed) was because the meanie Reps threatened people not to reveal the real numbers so it would pass. :)

The projection was from after passage of the bill. Bush's initial estimate of the cost was $400 billion.

googlegoogle
03-25-2010, 12:51 PM
Frum = neocon

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 12:58 PM
Frum = neocon

googlegoogle = dittohead

googlegoogle
03-25-2010, 02:11 PM
Frum is a compromising big city big tax loving republican.

patteeu
03-25-2010, 02:26 PM
Frum = neocon

Frum is a neocon, but not all neocons are as objectionable as Frum. There are plenty of neocons who are solid conservatives.

Chocolate Hog
03-25-2010, 02:33 PM
Patteau doesn't like Frum.

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 02:35 PM
Patteau doesn't like Frum.

:hmmm:

...guess I should read Frum more often then.

orange
03-25-2010, 02:46 PM
David Frum, AEI SPLIT: Conservative's Position 'Terminated' By Major Think Tank

First Posted: 03-25-10 03:09 PM | Updated: 03-25-10 04:23 PM

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has resigned from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, Frum announced on his Web site Thursday afternoon -- a move which suggests the conservative movement has cut ties with Frum over the straight talk he has been providing all week.

Following the passage of health care reform in the House, Frum made waves with a column for CNN.com declaring that health care had proven to been "Waterloo" for the GOP, not for Obama as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) infamously suggested. Republican lawmakers quickly dismissed Frum, a prominent reformist conservative, as a mere "former staffer."

Then Frum said on "Nightline" that the Republican Party's lockstep with the Fox News attack machine has hurt the party, and that "we're discovering we work for Fox." That may have been the last straw for AEI.

"I have been a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 2003. At lunch today, AEI President Arthur Brooks and I came to a termination of that relationship," Frum wrote on his Web site. The full text of his "resignation" letter is below:

Dear Arthur,
This will memorialize our conversation at lunch today. Effective immediately, my position as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute is terminated. I appreciate the consideration that delays my emptying of my office until after my return from travel next week. Premises will be vacated no later than April 9.

I have had many fruitful years at the American Enterprise Institute, and I do regret this abrupt and unexpected conclusion of our relationship.

Very truly yours,
David Frum

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 02:50 PM
Now...I'll have to really pay much closer attention to him....sounds like he's hit a nerve--which is a sure sign he's onto something.

:hmmm:

patteeu
03-25-2010, 03:01 PM
Now...I'll have to really pay much closer attention to him....sounds like he's hit a nerve--which is a sure sign he's onto something.

:hmmm:

Yeah, he's onto something just like David Brock and David Gergen were on to something. Enjoy your new icon. He suits you.

Direckshun
03-25-2010, 03:47 PM
Holy shit, AEI canned him. HAHAHAHA

Good GOD. What a fucking small tent you're in, pat.

patteeu
03-25-2010, 05:29 PM
Holy shit, AEI canned him. HAHAHAHA

Good GOD. What a ****ing small tent you're in, pat.

I'm not in the AEI tent. Their tent is one of a constellation of tents within the vast conservative bivouac in which I find myself though. If we can just keep the Paulistas from taking their tents and setting up a remote outpost in a cave somewhere after blowing up all the bridges between here and there, we'll be fine.

Frum won't be missed though. Neither was David Brock.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2010, 07:12 PM
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big.
ROFL That tells me all I need to know about Frum's conservative credentials!ROFL NeoCons are leftists too. So is Mitt Romney. Fakes!

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 08:23 PM
I'm not in the AEI tent. Their tent is one of a constellation of tents within the vast conservative bivouac in which I find myself though. If we can just keep the Paulistas from taking their tents and setting up a remote outpost in a cave somewhere after blowing up all the bridges between here and there, we'll be fine.

Frum won't be missed though. Neither was David Brock.

Too bad the Cons are setting up their friggin' tents on a damn floodplain in March, after one of the wettest winters in memory....

:hmmm:


:)