Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* No White House involvement in push to get Meek out of race: Despite what you hear to the contrary, my reporting last night supports what Ben Smith says: The White House was not involved in any push to get Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Florida Senate race.

A source close to Clinton told me that Charlie Crist asked the Clinton camp if he would talk to Meek, and confirmed that no one in the White House was involved in initiating Clinton's help.

* No post-election triangulation: Though the usual suspects will predictably respond to Dem losses by calling on Obama to triangulate a la 1995, Ron Brownstein points out that today's historical circumstances are entirely different.

* Where are the Perriello Democrats? David Ignatius, in his coming Sunday column, makes an important point about embattled Dem Rep. Tom Perriello, who's trying to prove you can win in a difficult district while aggressively defending the Obama/Dem agenda:

I can't help but think that if more Democrats had spoken in the voice of Perriello -- passionate about the economy, independent of Democratic interest groups and unapologetic about their record -- the results on Tuesday might look a bit different.

* Also: With Obama set to campaign for Perriello this evening, don't miss Alex Burns's look at how liberals are coming to his rescue in hopes of sending Dems a message about sticking up for what they believe in.

* Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer? With Schumer subtly positioning himself to make his move if Harry Reid goes down, the Dem caucus may well become more partisan and hard-charging next year.

* Media soft on Sharron Angle? People will snicker at Reid for claiming the press has mostly given Angle a pass, but it's true that surprisingly few media figures have reckoned with the real implications of Angle's deeply eccentric views and temperament and whether they belong anywhere near the Senate.

* Has White House given up on Feingold? An interesting nugget buried in Anne Kornblut's story about Obama's involvement in the midterms: The White House decided against an Obama trip to Wisconsin this week because the race is slipping away.

* Also: Feingold gives a poignant interview to Dave Weigel about how the Dems have failed to break through the GOP's roar of messaging on the economy in order to communicate Dem accomplishments to voters.

* America is a center-right country and Obama succumbed to temptation of liberal overreach: Jon Chait pleads for sanity and empiricism in the coming debate over the meaning of the expected GOP victory.

* Liberal stalwart to be defeated by Tea Partyer? Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva, who played a major role articulating liberal priorities in this Congress, is suddenly at risk of defeat at the hands of a 28-year-old physicist buoyed by infusions of outside Tea Party money.

* Think Progress versus U.S. Chamber: Whatever you think of the foreign-cash charges against the Chamber, it really is true that many media outlets badly misrepresented what Think Progress has been actually claiming.

* And boy is next year going to be fun: Mark Murray reports that the Senate GOP leadership is busily trying to evolve a scheme to prevent senators Rand Paul, Ken Buck, and Sharron Angle from raiding the liquor cabinet and breaking all the furniture.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 29, 2010; 8:28 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, Morning Plum, Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Charlie Crist asked Clinton camp to suggest Meek drop out, source says
Next: The GOP's fear-based agenda

Comments

Greg

This blog posting by a gay Democrat in Chicago has been making the rounds.

There is absolutely no doubt that the bullying tactics used by the Obama people simply do not sit well in the American political system.


The Obama people have made a point to bully their opponents. If the Obama people do not like what someone else has been saying, the charges of RACISM have come out in force.

This tactic has been repeated around the country - in started in the primaries in 2008 against the Hillary people - and it culminated in the confrontation on Capitol Hill last March.

There is a widespread belief that these Obama tactics are out-of-bounds - that somehow they have crossed the lines of what has previously been acceptable in the political debates in this country.


These Obama tactics have been employed all over the internet.

These Obama attack tactics have also been employed against any woman, black or hispanic who expresses Conservative views.

There is a sense among the Obama people that they want to dominate these groups - and any person who is a woman, black or hispanic who rises to a leadership role in those groups should be relentlessly attacked and smeared.


To say that these smears are wrong is just not the whole story - it is a sense that people in those groups do NOT have the Freedom of thought - they are "owned" by the democrats by virtue of their gender or ethnic status.

____________________________


I am pointing all this out because the attitude of the Obama people has been out-of-line. They are dragging down the discussions and the atmosphere in these blogs - and in the general political discussions around the country.

Calling someone a racist stops the conversation. People do not want to engage those people again.


This is why so many people firmly believe that Obama and his people have to go - there is no reasonable discussions with these people.

In addition, the idea of being post-racial is actually being TRAMPLED by Obama and his crew.


Look at the tactics, when the leftists do not want to engage in the conversation, the attacks start. The bullying starts. There is the attitude "I'm going to drive you away." "I'm going to ingore you." "I'm going to organize everyone on the blog to ignore you and be hostile to you."

None of this contributes toward a dialogue, and it certainly does not contribute toward bipartisanship.

The Chicago blogger:

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/27/an-open-letter-to-rush-limbaugh-and-his-listeners/

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully it is Senate MINORITY Leader Chuck Schumer. Also "... no one in the White House was involved in initiating Clinton's help ..." THIS TIME to push the black candidate out of a race.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 29, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

The guy above (currently SE) needs to be gone.

Aside from that...

Karen Tumulty again demonstrates her serious reporter skills and ethic by teasing out an important question re Gingrich as Presidential nominee, particularly as regards his acceptability to the Christian right:

"The biggest transformation for the once proudly secular Gingrich has been the one that led to his conversion last year to Catholicism. His speeches - including one Wednesday at Liberty University, founded by the late evangelist Jerry Falwell Sr. - are now laced with references to God.

"We believe it is impossible to explain America without reference to the creator," Gingrich said. "The concept of driving God out of the public square is a concept which would destroy America and replace it with a secular system alien to our entire history."

Is that the light from heaven that flashes on the road to Damascus - or the one to Des Moines?"

Well, yeah. And so Tumulty digs in tenaciously to sort out this cogent issue and gets her answer by phoning up this guy...

"It's very clear to me that this is real," said conservative strategist Ralph Reed"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/28/AR2010102807414_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010102807419

Posted by: bernielatham | October 29, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

This person is laughing in your face Greg along with the rest of WaPo.

Hope you realize that.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 29, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The GOP noise machine is very impressive. Word went out last night that the Meek/Clinton meeting is to be framed as some sort of bigotry and the right immediately executed their orders to advance this meme. The efficiency is staggering and far more choreographed than the dreaded journolist "conspiracy."

How much do they pay you for your drivel claw daddy?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 29, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Rs winning a majority in the House and a few Senate seats will cause some Ds to fly right, but this is no '94. I imagine the smarter Rs know that and that is what that plan, a hazing I meant welcoming committee for the incoming Newt wannabe bomb throwers is about. They'll be told their little TP is over. The corporate interests and the "values voters" run the Republican party, in that order, that won't change.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Quarterback's assessment on the previous thread.

12BarBlues has been harassing and stalking me. She has also recruited several of her friends to come to this blog in order to engage in hostile comments.

Many people on this blog will agree this has gone on.

__________________________

The major point is clear.

No one should be blamed for responding to the BULLYING by the Obama people - especially if that response is to dig in one's heels, continue to post one's opinion and refuse to be driven away.


This bullying by the Obama people has been going on since the winter of 2008 -

I see a real issue with the Washington Post allowing this to go on for so long - the hostile comments and the attacks - and then all of a sudden taking action against Conservatives before the election in 2010. This issue includes the virtual shutting down of the Fix in August before a midterm.


So the Obama people have been allowed to run wild for all of 2008, 2009 and half of 2010 - and then when the Conservatives deserve the opportunity to respond - there is all sorts of new enforcement actions before the midterm election.


And not-for-nothing, it appears the Obama bullies are the ones who are trying to lead the charge for banning - that seems to be the ONLY tactic available left to them.

They are not engaging on the field of ideas.

The Obama people are bullying, attacking, smearing and trying to ban people.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

On Feingold, I believe I recall reading that Russ himself was not interested in Obama's help...maybe two or three weeks ago. ???

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 29, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

As we've been saying on the left:

@political wire:

"A Bloomberg National Poll finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't be recovered.

The facts: The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, has overseen an economy that has grown for the past four quarters and expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks.

Said pollster Ann Selzer: "The public view of the economy is at odds with the facts, and the blame has to go to the Democrats. It does not matter much if you make change, if you do not communicate change."

That's what makes politics so frustrating... The way Republicans act and campaign, facts undeniably take a back seat and that hurts our country.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

As we've been saying on the left:

@political wire:

"A Bloomberg National Poll finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't be recovered.

The facts: The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, has overseen an economy that has grown for the past four quarters and expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks.

Said pollster Ann Selzer: "The public view of the economy is at odds with the facts, and the blame has to go to the Democrats. It does not matter much if you make change, if you do not communicate change."

That's what makes politics so frustrating... The way Republicans act and campaign, facts undeniably take a back seat and that hurts our country.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

"And boy is next year going to be fun: Mark Murray reports that the Senate GOP leadership is busily trying to evolve a scheme to prevent senators Rand Paul, Ken Buck, and Sharron Angle from raiding the liquor cabinet and breaking all the furniture."

I am reminded of the Clash's song "Death or Glory"

Posted by: sold2u | October 29, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill! That's who I left out. God bless pragmaticstill!

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 29, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

National Review has published a piece today supporting the notion that Congress should establish a "well-designed and adequately financed national strategic plan" to cure Alzheimers by 2020.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/251411/curing-alzheimer-s-james-p-pinkerton

What kind of heartless, anti-government screeds will these right-wing propagandists think of next?

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 29, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Shrink at 8:50

Let me just follow your reasoning a bit


If it is true that the Republican party is being tugged and pulled by "corporate interests" and the "values voters of the Tea Party" -

then wouldn't be correct to state that the democrats should be routing for the Tea Party values voters to prevail over the "corporate interests" having influence over the Republican party ????


That is to say, the democrats should feel more affinity with the Tea Party values voters than the corporate interests

Hmmm think about it - wouldn't the democrats prefer to have a large Tea Party group in Washington demanding its values guide the Republicans?


______________________________


Ironically, the democratic party is also heavily dominated by corporate interests.

The Free Trade deals were supported by corporate money to the democrats. The deregulation of derivates, repeal of Glass Steagall - all supported by Wall Street money.


Obama made deals with the big pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufactures.

Obama has been taking unbelievable amounts of corporate money - like the trickling out that BP gave Obama almost a million dollars before the oil spill - OH just when off-shore oil drilling was under review.


I just believe that if the democrats are going to criticize and attack the "corporate interests" of the Republicans, the democrats should be equally critical of the "corporate interests" of the Democratic party, I don't ever hear that.

.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

shrink2

Let me just make my point clear -

No one should be taken seriously who criticizes "corporate interests" in the Republican party - if that same person doesn't lump Obama and the Clinton who are equally tied to "corporate interests" and their money - in with the Republican sell-outs.


It is that simple. Clinton and Obama sold out this country equally with the Republicans. If the Clintons and Obama are not equally put in there, then it is simply another deception pushed by the democrats.


.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Republicans to the Tea Party, "Bye, bye, seeee ya, thanks for coming, don't let the door hit you on your way out. We'll help you pack your stuff. Say, do you want some help carrying your costumes?"

Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

National Review contributor favoring Alzheimer's research? Hard to imagine a better example of self-interest.

You're playing a strawman game. Not interested.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 29, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

The media's failure over the last 30 years has seriously f***ed up this country. Next Tuesday looks to be yet another instance of massive corporations, and the media conglomerates they own, taking America even further backwards.

Here's to hoping there's a suprise next week. Otherwise, here's hoping that 2 years of GOP destruction will remind voters why they gave Dems power in the first place, and 2012 rebounds just as hard.

@Greg

Seriously, I know that you chide the media pretty regularly...but are there ever times you just throw up your hands in frustration over just how freakin' terrible those in you're profression are doing their jobs?

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | October 29, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Shrink at 9:24

Well, if there are 8 to 10 Tea Party Senators and a good chunk of Republican Congressmen who are Tea Party loyal - perhaps 70-80, it will be really difficult for the Republican leadership to push them aside.

Again, wouldn't it be logical in that case for the democrats to be routing for the Tea Party and their efforts against the "corporate interests"

The "corporate interests" are your enemy - and the ones who get the democrats to sell out are equally in that category.


.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

"National Review contributor favoring Alzheimer's research? Hard to imagine a better example of self-interest."

That is hilarious! Now if I can just get all this coffee off my screen...thanks for the morning laugh.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Here's the most bizarre and interesting thing you're likely to read today. Armey interviewed by Marvin Olasky (Olasky was the chap who inspired Bush to head out on the Faith-Based Initiatives project and who forwarded the notion of "compassionate conservatism"...Will and Didion have written very good pieces on Olasky in the NYRB)

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17243

Posted by: bernielatham | October 29, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"You're playing a strawman game."

Your typical ploy when attempting to avoid the obvious.

"Not interested."

I know...in precisely the same manner that fundamentalists religious zealots are not interested in examing evidence contrary to their faith, either.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 29, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

From a Guardian piece on Bush's book...

"In a chapter about stem cell research, he describes receiving a letter from Nancy Reagan detailing a "wrenching family journey", but says: "I did feel a responsibility to voice my pro-life convictions and lead the country toward what Pope John Paul II called a culture of life.""

Indeed. I think this "culture of life" motto so intrinsic to America's deepest values and identity that it ought to, as a matter of law, be inscribed on every M16, every deep-penetrating bomb, every missle, every nuke, every Black Talon bullet casing, every Stealth bomber and each fragment incorporated in ever cluster-bomb.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 29, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if anyone here has mentioned the Patricia Cohen article in the Wednesday Times about James T. Kloppenberg's new book on Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/books/28klopp.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage I found Kloppenberg's comments on Obama's writings and his conclusions about his ideas fascinating. In short, they suggest a man whose outlook is not only measured but informed by a coherent philosophy that takes a longer and wider view than we are accustomed to finding in our leaders. Kloppenberg specifically ties Obama's thinking to the pragmatism of the late 19th century philosophers like William James who were "coming to believe that chance rather than providence guided human affairs, and that dogged certainty led to violence." As Kloppenberg says, "Pragmatism maintains that people are constantly devising and updating ideas to navigate the world in which they live; it embraces open-minded experimentation and continuing debate."

Kloppenberg draws a line between this kind of pragmatism and the more cynical, opportunistic kind of pragmatism that often appears in politics. It's an interesting distinction though, as Cohen points out, not one that everyone will accept. Reading the article reminded me of Charlie Rose's Wednesday night interview with Garry Wills in which Wills expressed his utter disillusion with Obama. He had no reservations about saying, as he's written, that he sees Obama as a person with a need to ingratiate himself with people. He was also taken with Rose's opinion that Obama is "arrogant about what he knows," though I have to say that arrogance seemed to roll off both men like sweat in a steam bath.

It remains to be seen whether Obama's pragmatism, as reflected in his governing style, will have legs for the long haul. But one thing seems pretty clear to me. There are a lot of people out there who believe they are Obama's superior in terms of knowledge, political savvy, and a sense of what policies are necessary for humane governance. They seem to hold these ideas with all the intensity of a jilted lover, and are not at all shy in being harshly dismissive of him. I wish I could open a history book fifty years from now and see how their certainties pan out.

Posted by: AllButCertain | October 29, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if anyone here has mentioned the Patricia Cohen article in the Wednesday Times about James T. Kloppenberg's new book on Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/books/28klopp.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage I found Kloppenberg's comments on Obama's writings and his conclusions about his ideas fascinating. In short, they suggest a man whose outlook is not only measured but informed by a coherent philosophy that takes a longer and wider view than we are accustomed to finding in our leaders. Kloppenberg specifically ties Obama's thinking to the pragmatism of the late 19th century philosophers like William James who were "coming to believe that chance rather than providence guided human affairs, and that dogged certainty led to violence." As Kloppenberg says, "Pragmatism maintains that people are constantly devising and updating ideas to navigate the world in which they live; it embraces open-minded experimentation and continuing debate."

Kloppenberg draws a line between this kind of pragmatism and the more cynical, opportunistic kind of pragmatism that often appears in politics. It's an interesting distinction though, as Cohen points out, not one that everyone will accept. Reading the article reminded me of Charlie Rose's Wednesday night interview with Garry Wills in which Wills expressed his utter disillusion with Obama. He had no reservations about saying, as he's written, that he sees Obama as a person with a need to ingratiate himself with people. He was also taken with Rose's opinion that Obama is "arrogant about what he knows," though I have to say that arrogance seemed to roll off both men like sweat in a steam bath.

It remains to be seen whether Obama's pragmatism, as reflected in his governing style, will have legs for the long haul. But one thing seems pretty clear to me. There are a lot of people out there who believe they are Obama's superior in terms of knowledge, political savvy, and a sense of what policies are necessary for humane governance. They seem to hold these ideas with all the intensity of a jilted lover, and are not at all shy in being harshly dismissive of him. I wish I could open a history book fifty years from now and see how their certainties pan out.

Posted by: AllButCertain | October 29, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Indeed. I think this "culture of life" motto so intrinsic to America's deepest values and identity that it ought to, as a matter of law, be inscribed on..."

Talk about a strawman game.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 29, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Ethan

Are you actually pushing the idea that the economy isn't that bad?

Clearly, how well the big corporations who give to Obama and the democrats are doing is meaningless to the American People.


The American People care about the unemployment rate, the under-employment rate and their own prospects.


How corporations are doing, like the big pharmaceutical companies which are in bed with Obama, is completely meaningless.

And if you are going to count Obama's mini-tax cut - the seven dollars a week most people got - the American People do not look too kindly on that reasoning.

The democrats in the House all voted for Cap-and-Trade, which will cost the middle class much more than that - plus Obama's health care bill has pushed $700 billion in higher premiums on the economy -

You don't think that the middle class will end up paying for that $700 Billion in higher premiums ? They KNOW they will.

.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about the double post. I got a weird error message that indicated it didn't post the first time.

Posted by: AllButCertain | October 29, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "I know...in precisely the same manner that fundamentalists religious zealots are not interested in examing evidence contrary to their faith, either."

That's why, generally, when I'm thinking clearly, I avoid Global Warming debates as well. It's best to avoid getting drawn into religious arguments. ;)

And The First Church of Global Climate Change does not suffer heretics gladly.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 29, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer? With Schumer subtly positioning himself to make his move if Harry Reid goes down, the Dem caucus may well become more partisan and hard-charging next year.
---------------------------------------------

Seems to me that in even the most fantastically optimistic best-case scenario, it's a pretty foregone conclusion that the Democratic caucus in the next congress is going to accomplish one hell of a lot less than this one did. If that's your idea of "hard-charging," that's kind of weird when you think about it.

Posted by: CalD | October 29, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, Dick Armey led the cooptation of the TP. Long before the Koch bros and the corporate TPExpress, he was driving them into the Republican fold. When he jumped in front of the early libertarian tinged TP chaos and yelled, "Follow me!" I felt relief like a morning constitutional, then I knew the TP was over there on the wall, right where it was and right were it needs to stay. He is the one who sold the Contract from America through the TP and ran the "values voters" agenda up their costumes.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

shrink and Bernie:

I am sensing that you two are about to have your own little Claude Rains/Humphrey Bogart moment.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 29, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Hi ABC...I read the piece but not sure if I linked it here. The fellow's thinking seemed to match mine in many ways. I didn't see the Rose/Wills thing but I'm a big fan of Wills too. It's a tough one. The very real possibility exists, I think, that America is no longer governable under present conditions other than in some highly autocratic manner bolstered by effective propaganda regimes. The next five years will demonstrate whether the experiment has failed.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 29, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

shrink2

The Tea Party is not going away. They just didn't spring up over the last two years - they have been out there complaining about the spending and the high taxes for a long, long time.


The Tea Party is driven by a simple idea: if a moderate Republican is going to get into office and start voting for excessive spending, they don't want them in office.


The democrats would be wise to abandon their own corporate interests - and start to align themselves with the Tea Party and their values.

Otherwise, the democrats run the risk of having their own party overrun by the "corporate interests" Obama has already sold out the gay community and the hispanics who was amnesty, so who else is next?

The women's groups got run-over by the Obama people with the Hillary situation and the smears against Sarah Palin. So Obama was never a friend on those issues.


Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

@sue

Your right. It sure seemed like Feingold didn't want the President's help. They called it scheduling conflicts, but I think when the president comes calling, you change your schedule.

It will be interesting to see what happens. The polls have Feingold and Johnson neck and neck. But the same polls also show Scott Walker (R) ahead of Tom Barrett (D) for governor. I would think they are getting the same votes. A disconnect in the polls, or something else?

Posted by: Bailers | October 29, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

@shrink - yup, Armey's role in this (and who it is paying him to play it) are familiar.

But the piece is interesting for completely different reasons. Not least being the "I stand shoulders above all others" tone but what he says about, particularly, Gingrich.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 29, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

CalD at 9:49 AM


OH MY - Obama and the democrats might actually have to be bipartisan - and Obama might actually have to compromise with the Republicans. After all Obama was the dude who went around the nation for years telling everyone he could bring people together to compromise.

Sure seemed to the country that Obama was the one not willing to compromise


___________________________________


Obama would be wise to get his health care bill on the table right away.


A Republican House is not going to be in the mood to compromise on any budget - if Obama's health care bill is not somehow getting major modifications.

The Republican House at a minimum is going to want to de-fund the health care bill and push off all the implementation deadlines.

_____________________________


However, there is a real opportunity here for Obama to back-off of this ridiculous 2,000 page bill which is, in essence, horrible economic policy.

So, the wise move would be like this: Obama agrees to strip down the bill, pull out the massive trillion dollar spending, pull out the subsidies and the ridiculous "seven years of taxes against 10 years of spending."

What would remain is tough regulation of the health insurance companies - treat them like utilities.


The fiscal irresponsibility of the Obama bill has to be addressed - sooner or later when there are massive deficits in the Federal and State budgets. Someone smart around Obama has to be telling him that his bill is a fiscal nightmare and that will destroy any sense of accomplishment Obama might think he has now.

If Obama agrees to strip down the health care bill, and take out all the new taxes and mandates, then Obama is actually in better shape going into 2012.


Isn't that Obama's real goal at this point, to improve his position for 2012 - this massive health care bill which is horrible economic policy and a fiscal ticking-time-bomb should be thrown over-board by Obama.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"The Tea Party is not going away. They just didn't spring up over the last two years - they have been out there complaining about the spending and the high taxes for a long, long time.'

That's for sure. Those were some great rallies they held during the Bush43 years.

Posted by: cao091402 | October 29, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Last I heard, ultra-conservative (Club of Growth) Rubio was polling at 40 some percent, well below 50%. Crist polled in the 30's, and the Democrat Kendrick Meek polled around 20%.

Given these results, it would seem fair to assume that some 55% of FL voters want to be represented by a moderate politician, and not a right-wing radical like Rubio - who can be expected to vote to the right of the Tea Party for the next 6 years (at least!) in the US Senate.

So why would it then not make sense to get these two politicians to work out a compromise, whereby one throws his support and campaigns vigorously for the other, in exchange for commitments for specific initiatives going forward, or support back at a future point in time?

What would FL citizens gain by these two politicians holding to a losing strategy until the day of the election? Wouldn’t that just result in dividing their constituents, and their votes, thus making it possible for a radical right candidate to win the election without a majority of the vote?

And can it be that FL politicians and voters suffer from clinical amnesia? Was it really that long ago for them, that they cannot remember when a different ego-driven politician played stubborn (yes, I'm talking about you, Ralph Nader!) and made it possible for George Bush to take FL, and with it the Presidency (which led us straight into the 8 year disaster his Presidency was for America and the world)?

I honestly don’t get it!

Come on, Kendrick, you know we would love for you to be elected to the Senate this time around, but politics is also about reality and rationality. Right now we need you to take a hit for the team and help us defeat Rubio before it's too late. And Kendrick, we know you’re a team player -we know you can do this, and we know you can do it in a way that will get the Democratic vote to pour out and defeat these radical Republicans across FL.

One more point: Remember Lance Armstrong’s old saying, which is true: “What goes around, comes around!” Though at first glance it may not seem so, I’m convinced you are today looking at a huge opportunity to do what’s best for the people of Florida, for the people of America, and for your reputation as a politician going forward. You can be sure Dems and Independents across FL will recognize and remember your courage in stepping aside and fighting for the team this year.

When you next run for elected office, all voters will know that in backing you, we'll be backing a man who's not in it for his ego or his personal advantage, but is a man who has proven he's got guts and is a principled politician who’ll do what’s best for the people even when it hurts. That legacy of an exceptional politician worthy of support will be with you forever, and so will your supporters.

Posted by: harborview2020 | October 29, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

The TP has already gone away, now it is an adjective in search of a noun.

It is a brand, something to be bought and sold.

That was inevitable, a Rick Santelli Karl Denninger mashup is not going to be a resilient force.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Bernie, I think I'm more optimistic than you are, though it would certainly be highly ironic if all the anti-government fervor out there resulted in some kind of autocracy.

As far as Garry Wills is concerned, I used to admire him a lot, but there sometimes comes a point when these big egos descend into variations of old f artdom. Surely as someone with credentials in the academic world, you're aware of this phenomenon.

Posted by: AllButCertain | October 29, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

cao091402 at 10:14 AM


They were there - at the Republican meetings fighting with the moderates over spending. Believe me, it has been going on all over the country for a long time


__________________________


Sure, they weren't having Soros and union-funded anti-war rallies and marches which had more to do with domestic politics than the War in Iraq.


Observation: For some reason after 9/11, the democrats stopped listening to the Republicans - it was all "Bush lied, and Cheney is the worst guy ever, including Mr. Potter."

The democrats started listening to only themselves at their own meetings - and the ideas circulating at those meeting were never vetted and countered by opposing view-points. The result was a liberal mish-mash of ideas which lacked evaluation and reasoning.

It was an echo chamber which produced poor ideas which never could stand up against reality. Obama is suffering from this right now.


The terrorism policies, the Afghan policy, the health care taxes, the economic policies, the gay agenda, the amnesty idea - all this stuff is extremely unrealistic and will never, ever fly with the nation as a whole.

It is a complete mess.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie "...what he says about, particularly, Gingrich." Yes and the sickening, point blank head shot at DeLay, except that DeLay is already dead so that was easy.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"Also: Feingold gives a poignant interview to Dave Weigel about how the Dems have failed to break through the GOP's roar of messaging on the economy in order to communicate Dem accomplishments to voters."
-------------------------------------------

This would be the same Russ Feingold who voted with Republicans against Wall Street Reform because he didn't consider it enough of an accomplishment to meet his own saintly standards (and in doing so of course, forced Democrats weaken the bill in order to round up another Republican vote). He's really breaking my heart over here.

Posted by: CalD | October 29, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Harborview at 10:10 says:

" it would seem fair to assume that some 55% of FL voters want to be represented by a moderate politician, and not a right-wing radical like Rubio - who can be expected to vote to the right of the Tea Party for the next 6 years (at least!) in the US Senate."

__________________________________

Dude, let's just translate this reasoning into something the country is thinking:

"It would seem fair to assume that some 55% of American voters want to be represented by a moderate politician, and not a left-wing radical like Obama - who can be expected to push his far-left agenda. So, let's get Obama to resign and get the country to move on"


It is important for the government to be responsive to what the American People actually want -


Right now the country is being held hostage by a bunch of far-left wing radicals - who use bullying and smear tactics on a regular basis.


AND who are determined to take as much corporate money as possible to stay in possible - and run deceptive tv commercials - in efforts to fool enough centrists into voting for them - even though Obama and the leftists have no intention at all of governing in accordance with what those centrist voters want.

The country is being held hostage - you are a racist if you don't agree to the kidnapper's demands.

.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Does any Republican/conservative want to take an intellectually honest crack at a response to this?

-------------------------

@political wire:

"A Bloomberg National Poll finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't be recovered.

The facts: The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, has overseen an economy that has grown for the past four quarters and expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks.

Said pollster Ann Selzer: "The public view of the economy is at odds with the facts, and the blame has to go to the Democrats. It does not matter much if you make change, if you do not communicate change."

-------------------------

ScottC? Kevin? QB?

I'd be interested in your take, particularly a response to the facts outlined in graph 2.

Thanks.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

OT: All, I'm working on a Greasemonkey script to simply remove comments from certain folks like they were never there. First version is likely to be hardcoded (you can guess which handles I'll be including), rather than super customizable, and if I make it customizable it'll be a little whacky to customize (i.e., there isn't going to be an interface for it, you'd just edit a text file).

Greasemonkey is an extension that runs with Firefox, or (presumably) any browser that accepts Firefox plug-ins. So, it won't work with Safari. I think it might work with IE with another plug-in, but that's beyond the scope of my project. ;)

Anyone who is interested in beta-testing, let me know. Hopefully I'll have something today, but no promises. If Greasemonkey was PHP instead of Javascript, I'd be done by now. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 29, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Anybody as stupid as Grijalva deserves to lose, even though he is a Dem. How can you possibly call for a boycott of your own state and then tell voters you can work in their best interest?

It's just typical of the many mistakes that are bringing the Dems low.

I had several arguments on EK's thread yesterday with people who didn't even know that the CBO numbers for health care were all wrong, because they included the proposed 21% cut in Medicare provider payments that will never happne. You can be sure that those who OPPOSE the legislation know.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The TEA PARTY has always been out there, in spirit.

The TEA PARTY is a recent manifestation of what Richard Nixon calld the "Silent Majority".

The Silent Majority is the great mass of Yankee independents that have always been too busy holding down jobs and raising families to be political activists and protesters. They had to trust the government to do the right thing and usually did.

The silent majority only showed their anger on election day, in the past, when it was displeased.

The silent majority used to be a big part of the "Roosevelt Coalition" but as the Democrat party veered left, in the 1960s, it failed to pull the silent majority with it. The Republican party became the beneficiary of this Democrat near sightedness and this is the situation we have today.

The leftist goons that have a stranglehold on the Democrat party are making the Republican party the party of the heartland majority, by default.

The process is almost complete.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 29, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Ethan

You already got the correct answer at 9:46

.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Kevin. Let me know when you've got the script working.

I've got one name in mind.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 29, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Another in the same vein:

-Obama says most job losses occurred before his economic policies took hold-

"Most of the jobs that we lost were lost before the economic policies we put in place had any effect."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, October 27th, 2010 in an interview on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"

"I watched the president on Stewart’s show last night, and I thought his basic point about the timing of the employment losses was correct and ought to be noncontroversial," Gary Burtless, a labor markets expert at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution said in an e-mail.

There's still plenty to debate about the stimulus and its impact on the economy, and the recent reversal of job gains is troubling. But the numbers support Obama's statement, so we rate it TRUE.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/28/barack-obama/obama-says-most-job-loss-occurred-his-economic-pol/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Kevin wrote:

"All, I'm working on a Greasemonkey script to simply remove comments from certain folks like they were never there."

Aren't you wasting an entrepeneurial opportunity here? Wouldn't North Korea or Cuba pay handsomely for something like this?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

All, new Adam Serwer post on the GOP's fear based agenda:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/republicans_fear_based_agenda.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 29, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"Kevin. Let me know when you've got the script working."

Ditto that. Nice work Kevin.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Battlegrounds51

You are 100% correct -

ironically many of the flower-children and herion-altered people who were active in the democratic party in the 1960s have now re-emerged and showed up supporting the Obama people.


So now the "silent majority" is re-emerging to re-resist those crazies.

For some reason, I think all those people raised their families, got their kids off to college - then decided to go off to political meetings again -

They all are talking like 1968-1972 was yesterday - (almost as if the 1980s and 1990s never existed)

It is bizarre to hear some of these people talk.


.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

"The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans"

This is true. Kind of hard to pay income taxes when you don't have any income.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | October 29, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Kevin

I am actually working on earphones for liberals - which will eliminate all conservative ideas from being heard.

Also, under development are contact lens which prevent any reasonable thought from being read - on the internet or in any printed material.


I am also working on a filter for your television - any conservative thought will immediately be replaced with demand for the gay agenda agenda to be implemented immediately.


I'll let everyone know when these important advancements are ready.


.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

bailers,

Thanks. Good to know that someone else got the same impression I did. It sure seemed like Russ Feingold was trying to put some space between himself and Obama.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 29, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis, since I live near Googleville, Chrome is (instantaneous) fast, any chance for Chrome users?

Now I’ll relate this little bit, that happens more than I’d like to admit,*
sometimes, I feel yelled at and pestered.

*Offspring

Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"This is true. Kind of hard to pay income taxes when you don't have any income. "

So "Taxed Enough Already" is a joke, right NoVAHockey?

Incomes may be down, but taxes were decreased. Can we all agree that these are the facts and that the entire concept of "Taxed Enough Already" is totally fabricated?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

546489678

CBO numbers

Can you be more specific about what CBO numbers you are talking about?

It would be smart for the entire country to re-review the CBO numbers for Obama's health care plan - and get a fiscally responsible set of numbers together.


The Republicans would be wise to insist on a more realistic health care fiscal plan

I support stripping the whole Obama health care bill down - the "seven years of benfits against 10 years of revenues" has to be eliminate - both the benefits and the revenue sides.

The whole thing has to be re-worked with realistic numbers - before the massive Obama deficits open up.

Posted by: SolarEnergy | October 29, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Suekzoo1, I'm in that boat too. Russ lost me a while ago with his antics. FinReg but even before that, really.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Charlie Crist is making the talk show rounds stating that he spoke directly with White House staff about Meek's withdrawal and their support of him, so someone is lying. It doesn’t really matter, though, as voters are increasingly turned off by the sleazy backroom political wheeling-and-dealing that oozes from this Administration.

In any case, I don't see how this helps Crist. His admission that he is coordinating his campaign directly with the White House is likely drive away any remaining moderate Republican support he has, as well as some moderate independents. Democrats have already shown their disdain for former-Republican party switchers (Specter), so I don't see how he garners any additional Democratic support.

What this incident is likely to do is suppress potential Democratic votes, especially from black constituents, who may see their candidate and party as selling them out. This effect won't merely hurt Meek, but could endanger the entire Democratic slate in Florida. I have to believe that the tremendous scream you heard emanating from the Sunshine State after this news story broke came from Alex Sink’s campaign headquarters!

Posted by: braunt | October 29, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

"The facts: The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, has overseen an economy that has grown for the past four quarters and expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks."

The last part is simply not true. The Fed holds billions of dollars worth of securities taken from AIG among others that are worth far less in value than the profit. Why do you think that Maiden Lane took the extraordinary action of suing B of A for a take back on some of these MBS last week?

Also the real scenario is this. The Fed is lending to these institutions at zero percent interest, PAYING them 1-2% interest on Treasuries and then accepting back the profits as payment on the bailout.

To call it a shell game would be to disgrace a shell game. Only a financial idiot, as most Americans are by choice, would agree with the last part of that statement above.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

solar energy wrote:

"Can you be more specific about what CBO numbers you are talking about?

It would be smart for the entire country to re-review the CBO numbers for Obama's health care plan - and get a fiscally responsible set of numbers together."

It's really pretty simple. In 1996 in an effort to contain Medicare spending something called the SGR (sustainable growth rate) was passed. This legislation required automatic cuts in payments to Medicare providers on a formula from the agreed baseline, unless specifically waived by Congress. This worked fine for a few years but as health care spending grew more costly the required cuts became more prohibitive. The last actual cut was in 2002.

The last six proposed cuts have all been waived off by Congress, leaving a formulaic backup of 21% that is required by law. The new health care legislation CBO estimates included this cut in their numbers. You can't blame them, because that is what they were given to work with. However the chance that this cut ever happens is about as great as Gingrich's chance of becoming president.

This isn't even controversial. Do your own reserch on the subject.

It's not that health care was bad, but it was done in an economically unfeasible way.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Solar Energy,
No.

Posted by: cao091402 | October 29, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@shrink:

http://www.mychromeaddons.com/chrome-addon-greasemetal-greasemonkey-for-chrome/

Greasmetal is Greasemonkey for Chrome. However, at the moment, I'm not going to be testing against Greasemetal, but it functionally allows post-processing Javascripts to run on a page. So, essentially, it loads the page, then the Javascript runs, does it's magic, and then certain stuff is deleted. It's half done right now, but soon as I have it removing selected comments, versus all of them after a certain person posts, it'll be ready to rock.

re: North Korea. Well, this is just to clean things up for individual users. Some people might not want to read my off topic posts on Greasemonkey. Instead of having to wade through my nonsense, they should (in theory) be able to edit the script, add my handle to a comma delimitted list in a single variable at the top of the script, and then they'll never be bothered by me again. ;)

This way, folks who like troll-feeding can continue to, unabated. Won't do anything about folks who come from links from other sites and do one-offs, but I don't think those folks are that big a problem, myself.

I'm really doing this so STRF/LeafOfLife/SolarEnergy can block all of 12Bar's posts. I hate that he/she feels so harassed. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 29, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Taxed Enough Already" is totally fabricated?

I wouldn't say fabricated, but a stretch. But it depends on what you think the level of taxation should be.

Point of clarification: Are you talking about the changes in the brackets for the marginal tax rates? For example, in 2009 the 25% bracket was 67,901 – $137,050. for 2010, the 25% bracket was $68,001 – $137,300. So if you were near the line, it's possible you dropped from the 25% bracket to 15%

Or are you talking about the rebate checks. I wouldn't call them a cut.

The TEA slogan, I think, is in response to tax increases that will be needed to pay for, among other things, health care. The TEA party errors is in not including the cost of war and the bill that must be paid in their protest.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | October 29, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Solar Energy,
If they were around then, I'd be seeing signs at rallies now about how great Bill Clinton was. Remember that record surplus? That goes to his credit since that's how we keep score. If it happens on a president's watch, he gets the credit/fault, regardless of who is in control of Congress. Bush took the country into the toilet, lied us into a second front of war, watched as New Orleans drowned, etc. Ergo, he sucked as a president. So Obama takes over for that joker and it's like he's standing in a 30 foot hole and we threw him a shovel and said "Dig your way out". Know how hard is to dig up from something? He needs more than the 2 weeks the R's gave him.

Posted by: cao091402 | October 29, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Solar Energy,
If they were around then, I'd be seeing signs at rallies now about how great Bill Clinton was. Remember that record surplus? That goes to his credit since that's how we keep score. If it happens on a president's watch, he gets the credit/fault, regardless of who is in control of Congress. Bush took the country into the toilet, lied us into a second front of war, watched as New Orleans drowned, etc. Ergo, he sucked as a president. So Obama takes over for that joker and it's like he's standing in a 30 foot hole and we threw him a shovel and said "Dig your way out". Know how hard is to dig up from something? He needs more than the 2 weeks the R's gave him.

Posted by: cao091402 | October 29, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

We simply disagree about this. I have learned more in life from those who disagree with me than from those who agree, BUT of course that post was tongue in cheek.

Filter away and goodbye, since this may be the last post of mine that you will see?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

NoVAHockey, I was simply referring to the fact that Obama kept up his promise of cutting taxes for working families. I am not as well versed in the marginal rates, but I do see the rebate as a tax cut even if you do not.

"The TEA slogan, I think, is in response to tax increases that will be needed to pay for, among other things, health care."

I think there IS something to that. But it's not at the Federal level. I've been saying for some time that state income and property taxes are too high and contribute to the sense that taxes are weighing down the Middle Class. But the REASON they are so high is largely due to state medicare and medicaid responsibilities. That is greater monetary participation by the Federal government in paying those dues is so important. And since the federal government is and should take on a growing share of those dues, the whole system needs to be streamlined to be cost-efficient. HCR helps that, not hurts it. I think this idea, that HCR raises taxes, is another fundamental characterization by the right. HCR removed redundant payments and combats waste and fraud, thus limiting the payments that the federal government has to make, which in turn reduces the amount of taxes that need to go towards paying health care costs.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Ethan wrote:

"I think this idea, that HCR raises taxes, is another fundamental characterization by the right. HCR removed redundant payments and combats waste and fraud, thus limiting the payments that the federal government has to make, which in turn reduces the amount of taxes that need to go towards paying health care costs."

See my post above for why I disagree with your statement. (If you can still see my posts LOL)

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I think the Perriello race is going to provide the most interesting result in terms of 2012. He is sort of the Dem's Canary in the Coal Mine. If he survives, you will have a rash of Dem challengers to go against some of the Tea Party wackos that will win on Tuesday. The TP is a cynical GOP construct, the same way the GOP used the religiously insane Born Agains in 2000 and 2004. They are nothing but pawns in Rove's game.

Posted by: filmnoia | October 29, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

So, this Barack Obama episode is the latest in a long, sad, soap opera for the Democrat party.

Roosevelt nearly destroyed the Republican party way back in the 1930s because he knew who the real people were and that they were in real distress. He made the Democrat party dominant because he was able to paint Republicans as greedy, rich exploiters of normal, everyday Americans. Also, WWII made him into a war leader. That sealed his claim to fame.

It all started to crumble in the 1960s. The evil leftists were able to take advantage of the Democrat party instability due to the VietNam war and take command. It has been mostly downhill for the Democrat party since.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 29, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"I have learned more in life from those who disagree with me than from those who agree,"

Agreed 5446...and in fact Kevin is a righty I always read..tao..Scott..sold2u..well there are plenty of others I disagree with but whose posts I respect enough to read.

Others like S.E./LofL/STRF whatever he calls himself today are simply a waste of time. I can go to any blog and read partisan reactionary rants. Battleground/Spendnomore/Brigade are posters I'd love to filter if I had the chance...just as I'm sure there are many posters who would love to filter me.
I have zero problem with anybody filtering my posts...in fact I encourage it...I do not wish to waste anybody's time.

And so Kevin if you can come up with some programming magic to let us filter...bring it on my Memphis friend.

BTW 5446 I wouldn't filter you because you generally post thoughtfully...I don't have to agree with a poster to enjoy reading their thoughts...but I do like some thoughtfulness in the posts I read.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 29, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

rukidding:

Thanks, we can "friend" each other as the kids say!

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

K_W fascinating. Godspeed and all those good luck charm wishes.

As for whether the TP was the silent majority after all, or something new, the fact is they didn't seem to exist during the Bush/Cheney years and then all of a sudden...not so silent.

Face it, the TP was and is the Republican base. Nothing to see here, you can move on* now. The TP adjective was picked up by the entertainers on radio and TV and then used by some new players (Palin et al) and some old players (Armey) to advance their Republican careers at the expense of people like Lindsay Graham.

*get it, move on?


Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

To: SolarEnergy

Thanks for seeing what I see. It was Reagan who first noticed that the Democrat party was being influenced by hardcore leftists. It's why Reagan said that he didn't leave his party, his party left him.

I started realizing what was happening in the late 1960s. I was amazed that everyone could not see what I saw.

Many still do not see it but more are.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 29, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"See my post above for why I disagree with your statement. (If you can still see my posts LOL) "

That's fine and I accept your comments as factually correct even though your comment about the cut actually occurring is based more on an educated guess than any one policy or provision in the law.

But, that aside, are you implying or stating outright that none of the other cost-reduction measures in HCR will have an impact on federal spending on health care?

And another aside, were the curve NOT to bend down but remain flat or even on a slight incline, this is occurring despite the fact that 30+ million more people will be insured and the vast majority of Americans' insurance will become considerably more stable. I think, and we'll have to wait 20 years to know for sure, but in the medium to long term, HCR provisions WILL bend the curve down even considering the added costs of insuring millions of Americans while improving their coverage.

Any thoughts, 54465446?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

OK, now here's almost the rest of the story:

After the 1960s, the Democrat party nominated a series of ultra-liberal candidates and all went down to defeat. The infamous loser, Richard Nixon was able to defeat two of them. That's when I decided America is conservative and the major media was rooting for liberals. The media hated Nixon and trashed him at every opportunity yet Nixon won, twice.

It took Watergate to unseat Nixon and the liberals were celebrating. They were dancing on the imaginary grave of the GOP and looking forward to another 40 years of Democrat hegemony. How wrong they were.

After only one term, the liberal Jimmy Carter had America so depressed it decided to give Republicans another chance. This so soon after Watergate. Amazing!

Then came Reagan!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 29, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Ethan wrote:

"I think, and we'll have to wait 20 years to know for sure, but in the medium to long term, HCR provisions WILL bend the curve down even considering the added costs of insuring millions of Americans while improving their coverage."

Actually I was thinking just the opposite. I think the short term cost is going to be bad, but the final cost a great unknown.

The problem is that nothing in the legislation is straight forward, like the proposed Medicare provider cuts. They have crafted a very intricate machine, and the history of intricate financial machines is not good. I will concede that if everything worked exactly as proposed costs could come down. I just don't believe that will happen.

In the meantime, yes our costs will go up. I am already going to get a premium raise of about 11% this year, due to rising costs, but almost to expanded base of covered subscribers.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

@54465446: "Filter away and goodbye, since this may be the last post of mine that you will see?"

I don't know that I'm actually going to keep anybody filtered, aside from testing. What I'm more concerned about is the lmsincas, SueKazoos, quarterbacks and others who either just can't stand certain people (sad, but it happens) or don't like playing with trolls (I could live without the trolls). In any case, I just wanted to give them an option, especially because any heavily moderated forum is going to chase people away, and because any solution like The Fix is gonna keep me from participating, anyway (for technical reasons).

Works now for one commentor. Next, I gotta make it so it'll work for multiple commentors (not that anyone here ever uses sock puppets, but just in case).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 29, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

All, stunning Gallup number: Only a minority of DEMS thinks Congress accomplished more than usual this year:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/minority_of_democrats_say_this.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 29, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

A couple notes about the Fix purge/exodus. The problem is not just the somewhat NYT like, too long delay for PC moderation.

It was a lot of little things.

The twitter poo is caked all over the place. There is no reason for that, it is just evidence that someone tweeted the piece, like an intrusive hit count record for another planet.

Many times, a person will post something and it will be disappeared never to return for who knows what reason, which for all of the thick skinned among us means nothing, but for the thin skinned, that is a terrible slight and they go away. Problem is, some of those folks are very bright, quality not quantity posters.

The software is glitchy and makes temporal and organizational mistakes, which usually get sorted out, but still, it just seems too Beta.

Finally, Cillizza has gone to putting up random YTube junk, himself on little video pieces, perhaps to increase eyeballs, he has strayed off the hard core numbers riven, horse race politics the political people crave. Not so far that I don't read it every day, but far enough that there is a lot of eye rolling and clicking past every day.


Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah and how could I forget: Jabba the Zouk.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 29, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"I am already going to get a premium raise of about 11% this year, due to rising costs, but almost to expanded base of covered subscribers."

How do you directly associate your premium increase with expanded base of subscribers? Do you have any evidence that your assertion is correct?

Premiums have been going up since well before HCR.

I hear you about intricate machinery and all, but I still think you are minimizing, at best, or ignoring, at worst, the impacts of cost-reduction and efficiency provisions in HCR.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

My "normal" rate of increase has been about 5-7%. This year it will run about 11%. Since I am FEHB there is no issue with pre-existing conditions, but adult children are now covered for the first time.

Whether or not anyone hates the insurance industry, it is an article of simple common sense that you can't add hundreds of thousands of people to those covered and not expect premiums to rise accordingly.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

This is appropos of nothing but an indication of sheer lunacy in the world of financial advice. I have a stock that is up 8% today on no news from the company. Turns out that an analyst raised his rating on the company to "hold" from "strong sell". I didn't make that up.

So if you followed their advice, you don't have anything left to hold, This is why you never listen to analysts or economists, only traders and investors.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"Whether or not anyone hates the insurance industry, it is an article of simple common sense that you can't add hundreds of thousands of people to those covered and not expect premiums to rise accordingly."

I obviously disagree. Nothing about health care costs or premiums is simple common sense. It is an intricate web of policies, both public and private, dealing with complex issues and variable pricings.

Similarly, adding thousands or millions of people will increase the cost to the federal government, but cost-reduction measures put in place are aimed to off-set those increased costs and tamp them down to a manageable level.

Again, it may not be a perfect law, it may not work at all, but it is certainly not common sense no matter how you slice it. To suggest that it is, is in my humble opinion, grossly inaccurate.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

The proposed cost reduction measures will not be in place for years, but the law requires adult children to be covered today. That is what I mean by common sense.

Posted by: 54465446 | October 29, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul won't raid the liquor cabinet nor break the furniture; he believes in property rights.

Which doesn't mean he will be what Mitch would consider 'housebroken' in other respects.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | October 29, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

54465446: "The proposed cost reduction measures will not be in place for years, but the law requires adult children to be covered today. That is what I mean by common sense."

Cmon. You know, as well as anyone, that to implement a whole slew of cost-containment measures immediately upon the passage of the bill could totally up-end the existing health care market. It is clearly a flawed system, but I believe the more common-sense approach is to not damage the economy by expecting implementation of major changes to a large portion of the economy in a brief period of time. HCR was a major change to existing policy that will have major ramifications on our economy. It makes sense to spread the impact over a period of time.

Here is an excellent overview of cost-containment measures in the bill:

http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/COST_CONTAINMENT.pdf

I was going to list the provisions, but there are 20 in total. So here are just the areas where cost-containment provisions will be implemented (apologies for the caps):

* DELIVERY SYSTEM REFORMS/MOVING TOWARD VALUE-BASED PAYMENTS

* CRACKING DOWN ON WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE

* CONTAINING COSTS OVER THE LONG TERM

* UTILIZING PREVENTION AND WELLNESS PROGRAMS

* PROMOTING MARKET COMPETITION

Seriously. Read the whole thing. Many of these provisions make a great deal of sense and will impact the cost of health care:

http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/COST_CONTAINMENT.pdf

And actually, now that I'm reading it, that's not even everything. That document leaves out health care IT.

Here is another description of cost-containment proposals. These may or may not be in the bill, but again you can see clearly that there is more to cost containment than just medicare reimbursement rates, as I've been arguing:

http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx#What%20are%20the%20major%20proposals%20to%20contain%20costs?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 29, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

@battleground51

"The silent majority used to be a big part of the "Roosevelt Coalition" but as the Democrat party veered left, in the 1960s, it failed to pull the silent majority with it. The Republican party became the beneficiary of this Democrat near sightedness and this is the situation we have today.

The leftist goons that have a stranglehold on the Democrat party are making the Republican party the party of the heartland majority, by default.

Excellent analysis that few on this thread will accept, even though it's almost God's Own Truth.

Solar Energy

I was one of those hippie types who was "Clean for Gene" in '68 & am now an Independent verging on Libertarian. People grow up.

Posted by: djman1141 | October 29, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company