Some interesting poll results from MA, related to the special election;
QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?
Why would people who want health care passed vote for someone who was openly against health care during the campaign and probably against most other democratic agenda items.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Some interesting poll results from MA, related to the special election;
QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?
Why would people who want health care passed vote for someone who was openly against health care during the campaign and probably against most other democratic agenda items.
He's dreamy, he drives a truck, he didn't call Curt Schilling a Yankee fan.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Some interesting poll results from MA, related to the special election;
QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?
Why would people who want health care passed vote for someone who was openly against health care during the campaign and probably against most other democratic agenda items.
Yes, if only we needed more roads, bridges, and schools built, along with God-only-knows how many other infrastructure projects, we would be able to spend that money on something other than things we'll never, ever use.
If only...
Yeah we should definitely take highly skilled individuals out of their career paths and set them to work laying cement and bricks, holding up roadsigns and laying down orange cones.
Yeah, building and designing bridges, laying out mass transit networks and building and operating heavy machinery is easy. It's not like we need engineers there. Screw you civil engineers and mechanical engineers! You don't work in the military, so you do nothing but lay road cones.
That's my undergraduate focus actually. Road cone laying. I'm thinking about going for the masters (though I hear it's pretty tough).
This message is going to sell well with the people.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Brown wouldn't have won if the Dems weren't such huge fucking doormats and hammered through the healthcare legislation months back instead of waiting for a supermajority before doing anything.
The worst is that I can't help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They're afraid to actually implement them and face the judgement of the voters. That's the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.
I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." It's not that people are uninterested in who's right or wrong, it's that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact.
The stimulus bill in the spring showed us what was coming. In the face of a historic economic crisis, Democrats negotiated against themselves at the outset and subsequently yielded to absurd demands from self-described "moderates" to trim the package to a clearly inadequate level. No one made any rational argument about why a lower level was better. It would have been trivial to write "claw-back" provisions if the stimulus turned out to be too much or we could have done a rescission this year to give these moderates their victory, but none of this was on the table. We essentially looked like we didn't know what the right answer was so we just kinda went for what we could get. This formula was repeated in spades in both the Climate and Health Care debacles.
This is my life and I simply can't answer the fundamental question: "what do Democrats stand for?" Voters don't know, and we can't make the case, so they're reacting exactly as you'd expect (just as they did in 1994, 2000, and 2004). We either find the voice to answer that question and exercise the strongest majority and voter mandate we've had since Watergate, or we suffer a bloodbath in November. History shows we're likely to choose the latter.
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
PressCase on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I can't help but wonder if the Dems need to spend a bit more time in the wilderness come 2012. They clearly haven't learned their lesson, and frankly only came back to power because the GOP only managed to fuck up even worse (monumental feat that was).
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
Hahahah, you act like the Republicans are negotiating in good faith.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
Seriously? You think Democrats, who come to the bargaining table pre-compromised, haven't compromised enough?
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
Hahahah, you act like the Republicans are negotiating in good faith.
Have the republicans actually ever been offered a good deal?
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
Seriously? You think Democrats, who come to the bargaining table pre-compromised, haven't compromised enough?
If they aren't getting anything done, yes, they haven't compromised enough.
The point is they have to compromise a lot.
PressCase on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
reading tpm is really like watching a circular firing squad of panic.
i sure hope that they get their act together, but right now everyone seems to just have no idea what to do. Sure seems like a good time for a leader to take charge and ... oh.
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
Hahahah, you act like the Republicans are negotiating in good faith.
Have the republicans actually ever been offered a good deal?
This deal is to the right of the plan Nixon proposed forty years ago. I'm going to say yes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
Every compromise the Dems make is met by Republicans with "What the hell I'm not voting for this it is too liberal, maybe if you were to compromise."
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
Well, I guess you have a point. Why not allow the minority party to make certain citizens second class if it allows us a chance to reform something nebulous at some later point maybe? And I mean I'm sure their lockstep denial of every single entreaty to work together with Democrats will change if only the Democrats bend more on key issues. Why, I bet if they just implement the Republican plans wholesale, they'll face no opposition at all!
Could all this simply be the result of democrats not wanting to compromise enough?
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
Hahahah, you act like the Republicans are negotiating in good faith.
Have the republicans actually ever been offered a good deal?
Please define "a good deal" because the dems have given up a LOT in the health care bill.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I wrote this script before, but I'll make a brief re-write:
Democrats: We'd like single payer, but we know you hate that idea, so about we just give the insurance companies a ton of new customers, as long as they can beat out the "incredibly inefficient government" option in a free market?
Assholes: You're socialists!
Democrats: Fine, fine. That's great. Drop the public option, how about... a public option states can opt out.
Assholes: Marxists!
Democrats: Alright, well. Drop that, how about people from 55-64 can buy-in to Medicare and we expand Medicaid a bit?
Assholes: Maoists!
Democrats: Hmm. Let's drop all of that, and we'll throw in our daughters as sex toys for health insurance executives.
Assholes: Nazis!
Scott Brown: Mwahahahaha
Idiots (Aka the press): The Democrats clearly didn't compromise enough!
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So is this it? Game Over? If Democrats can't pass anything now at their strongest, when can they?
An excellent question. One which is causing quite a lot of consternation among liberals.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
I wonder how long itll be... 10... 20 years...before some people our age wind up in government. and then on top of that i wonder if they will have spines.
24-7 media coverage and the internet. All politicians are now campaigning all the time. The republican filibuster is a campaign tactic, designed to make themselves look strong and resolute and democrats weak and ineffectual.
Tiger Burning on
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
24-7 media coverage and the internet. All politicians are now campaigning all the time. The republican filibuster is a campaign tactic, designed to make themselves look strong and resolute and democrats weak and ineffectual.
The daily show did a good segment on the difference between Democrat and Republican compromising.
link STAT!
sorry i can't find it. It's been a while since I saw it.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
come on obama! im hoping against hope that you are gathering the troops and calming them down and moving forward with SOMETHING. Something more than just "oh hey lets see what brown has to say."
The military is the first obvious target for cost cutting, and really only needs to be perhaps 30% its current size.
yes the military that is currently stretched fighting 2 wars should be cut to 1/3 of its size, because in the future we will never have to fight more than 2/3 of a war. I think the US needs to get more funding for its military from the countries that it helps keep in existence ie. Serbia, Taiwan, S Korea etc.
How many f-22s, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines were required to win the war in Iraq? How many of them are required to keep the peace there? Oh, precisely zero. The US military should focus on infantry, infantry transport, close air support, drones and intelligence accompanied by a small number of carriers.
We use subs quite a bit actually... you do realize that not all of them are used to carry nukes right?
for that matter we used carriers a ton too. Fuck, I was ON one during the war.
Did you pull that entire quote out of your ass?
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Posts
Why would people who want health care passed vote for someone who was openly against health care during the campaign and probably against most other democratic agenda items.
He's dreamy, he drives a truck, he didn't call Curt Schilling a Yankee fan.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That's my undergraduate focus actually. Road cone laying. I'm thinking about going for the masters (though I hear it's pretty tough).
From a long e-mail posted at TPM.
I think that spin is awesome. "Okay you can't complain about non-majority anymore so you can't spend time obstructing, you have to govern!"
If that's how it ends up working out, I'm going to shit a fit.
Republicans want to lower taxes on the wealthy? Let them, in exchange for doing something else.
Republicans want to keep DADT and maybe ban gay marriage? Let them, in exchange for some other reform.
Republicans don't want abortion funding in healthcare reform? Don't put it. In fact, wasn't there a bill at one point that was pretty good except it didn't have this funding? Wasn't that one of the reasons people decided to just scrap it and start over?
His opposition was spineless and didn't want to be yelled at.
Tax cuts for your friends/donors and dead brown people are easy to support.
Hahahah, you act like the Republicans are negotiating in good faith.
Seriously? You think Democrats, who come to the bargaining table pre-compromised, haven't compromised enough?
Have the republicans actually ever been offered a good deal?
(Assuming he's talking about the Republicans) No! That's a bad Obama! Bad!
If they aren't getting anything done, yes, they haven't compromised enough.
The point is they have to compromise a lot.
i sure hope that they get their act together, but right now everyone seems to just have no idea what to do. Sure seems like a good time for a leader to take charge and ... oh.
This deal is to the right of the plan Nixon proposed forty years ago. I'm going to say yes.
Every compromise the Dems make is met by Republicans with "What the hell I'm not voting for this it is too liberal, maybe if you were to compromise."
Well, I guess you have a point. Why not allow the minority party to make certain citizens second class if it allows us a chance to reform something nebulous at some later point maybe? And I mean I'm sure their lockstep denial of every single entreaty to work together with Democrats will change if only the Democrats bend more on key issues. Why, I bet if they just implement the Republican plans wholesale, they'll face no opposition at all!
So the short answer is no no it could not.
Please define "a good deal" because the dems have given up a LOT in the health care bill.
Democrats: We'd like single payer, but we know you hate that idea, so about we just give the insurance companies a ton of new customers, as long as they can beat out the "incredibly inefficient government" option in a free market?
Assholes: You're socialists!
Democrats: Fine, fine. That's great. Drop the public option, how about... a public option states can opt out.
Assholes: Marxists!
Democrats: Alright, well. Drop that, how about people from 55-64 can buy-in to Medicare and we expand Medicaid a bit?
Assholes: Maoists!
Democrats: Hmm. Let's drop all of that, and we'll throw in our daughters as sex toys for health insurance executives.
Assholes: Nazis!
Scott Brown: Mwahahahaha
Idiots (Aka the press): The Democrats clearly didn't compromise enough!
link STAT!
An excellent question. One which is causing quite a lot of consternation among liberals.
What has changed?
Appeasement, if you will.
24-7 media coverage and the internet. All politicians are now campaigning all the time. The republican filibuster is a campaign tactic, designed to make themselves look strong and resolute and democrats weak and ineffectual.
We use subs quite a bit actually... you do realize that not all of them are used to carry nukes right?
for that matter we used carriers a ton too. Fuck, I was ON one during the war.
Did you pull that entire quote out of your ass?
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.