Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The State of the Race (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2092)

Bloggingheads 09-09-2008 09:50 AM

The State of the Race
 

claymisher 09-09-2008 10:22 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Doughy Pantload returns!

Francoamerican 09-09-2008 11:03 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Obama's cultural haughtiness? If I may quote myself from another forum:

As long as the Republicans can succeed in convincing Americans that they are the salt of the earth, whereas the Democrats represent perverted urban elites, they will be able to win more electoral votes than they would otherwise deserve if they had to argue logically about the problems actually facing the country---war, militarism, corruption in government, abuse of power, and economic mismanagement on a monumental scale.

Certain cultural themes revived by the choice of Palin (curiously reminiscent of an earlier European fascism: small-town, even rural values, healthy sex, youth, "faith," suspicion of education and sophistication and perhaps even a little touch of racism...) have an enormous resonance in American politics and will always trump serious politics. Bertrand Russell once observed that the USA is the only civilized nation where even graduates of "elite" schools take pride in being vulgar buffoons (not his exact words). Republican politicians have taken this populism to new depths. And things have become rather worse since Russell wrote. Look at Bush: product of Andover, Yale and Harvard....

American political rhetoric aims very low, but that is because the American electorate is one the least enlightened in the western world and expects to be flattered in its prejudices (Just compare the quality of political debate and commentary in Britain or France with that in the US). Pathos, or rather bathos, is the low road to high office.

bjkeefe 09-09-2008 11:49 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
A thought after listening to the first 28 minutes:

Jonah's take of the Democrats at their convention as talking to "victims" and "cultivating grievances," while calling the Republicans at theirs being "much more upbeat," completely ignores the reality that the entire RNC had as its dominant themes the "tyranny of the east coast elites" and the "dominance of the liberal media." Apart from a few billion reminders that JOHN MCCAIN WAS A POW, and a bunch of disparaging remarks directed at Obama, was there anything else?

bjkeefe 09-09-2008 11:59 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Another Jonah howler: Mitt Romney created jobs? Really?

Well, indirectly, in sweatshops overseas, I guess.

Thus Spoke Elvis 09-09-2008 12:14 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
If Obama loses (and I still expect him to end up winning by a comfortable margin), there will of course be arguments that he lost because of race. But I think an Obama loss in this environment will merely serve as conclusive proof that Americans prefer Republicans in the White House, just as they have historically preferred Democrats to control Congress. If Obama loses, the only non-incumbent Democrats to win Presidential elections since Kennedy would be Clinton in 1992 and Carter in 1976, and in both cases you had very extenuating circumstances (Carter got elected in the aftermath of Watergate, and Clinton got elected when Perot took a significant chunk of the populist conservative voting bloc).

I think there's a reason for this, and it's not that Republicans run better/dirtier campaigns than Democrats. If that was the case, why is it that the Democrats managed to control Congress for most of the past eighty years? Rather, I think it's that voters prefer a person with conservative traits to be President, and more liberal persons to be in control of the legislature.

bjkeefe 09-09-2008 12:43 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
There's something to that Elvis, but I think you underestimate, or maybe put things too politely, to say it's to do with Americans preferring a conservative in the White House. That may be true to a degree, but I think it is also true the the Republicans do, in fact, run much more effective campaigns by preying on fear and by portraying the Democratic candidates as elitist, out of touch, and anti-military.

I think it is also true that the MSM is considerably easier on the Republican candidate as a rule. Consider the lack of scrutiny that GWB got in 2000 and the endlessly repeated trope about "guy you want to have a beer with," compared to the pounding on the "Gore lies" theme. Compare the "maverick" and "war hero" tags which are required to be mentioned every time McCain is discussed, and the utter lack of examination beyond these to the obsession over trivialities in Obama's past or his actions and words while campaigning.

I also think it's true that the GOP tends to rally around their candidate much better, even if they don't much like him, than Democrats do. I'm speaking here mostly of those who have any sort of microphone. Compare the endless examination of Obama's flaws, not to mention the hyping of Democratic disunity, to the way most Republicans and conservatives got behind McCain, and then went crazy with love as soon as one bone (Palin) was tossed to them.

These three things work better when the election is about one person, which explains why the GOP is better at winning the White House than they are at Congressional elections.

Thus Spoke Elvis 09-09-2008 12:57 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 90496)

These three things work better when the election is about one person, which explains why the GOP is better at winning the White House than they are at Congressional elections.

But why would that be the case? Presumably, if a Republican strategy for convincing voters to choose someone for the White House works so well, why wouldn't it work at the statewide or district-wide level? Why is it that people's choice as to whom they elect for Congress (generally a Democrat) is at odds with whom they'd choose to elect for President (generally a Republican)?

Also, while Republicans were successful in pushing the elitist/out of touch meme in 2004 (though I think that had less to do with their victory than people's uncertainty as to what Kerry believed in when it came to national security) and it may in fact work in 2008, this strategy hasn't been used by Republicans in every election they've won. In fact, in most cases, it's been the Democrats who have more forcefully pushed the meme that the Republicans favor the powerful while they favor the common man, yet it hasn't worked for them.

seyoyo 09-09-2008 01:50 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Obama's not claimed to be so much bi-partisan as post-partisan. He doesn't say he'll work with Republicans to split the difference but to push issues on which large coalitions can be built.

He is essentially saying let's not argue those cultural issues, or those partisan issues. Let's fix the things most of us agree needs to be done.

Why it is compelling is that most of the big issues are now those. Homeland security. Fighting Terrorism Aggressively. Ending the War in Iraq. Healthcare. Energy Security. Climate Change. These are Obama's issues, and they are the issues which most of us agree need to be fixed.

bjkeefe 09-09-2008 02:01 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 90497)
But why would that be the case? Presumably, if a Republican strategy for convincing voters to choose someone for the White House works so well, why wouldn't it work at the statewide or district-wide level?

It's easier to sell a single, concrete image; i.e., some simple themes as embodied in one person.

Quote:

Why is it that people's choice as to whom they elect for Congress (generally a Democrat) is at odds with whom they'd choose to elect for President (generally a Republican)?
Several reasons, I think. First, the Congress, especially the House, is more granular. Generally, the voters lean generic Democratic and favor more liberal-leaning policies, especially domestic ones. Second, a lot has to do with the power of incumbency. A third factor may be a general preference among casual voters for "keeping things balanced."

Quote:

Also, while Republicans were successful in pushing the elitist/out of touch meme in 2004 (though I think that had less to do with their victory than people's uncertainty as to what Kerry believed in when it came to national security) and it may in fact work in 2008, this strategy hasn't been used by Republicans in every election they've won. In fact, in most cases, it's been the Democrats who have more forcefully pushed the meme that the Republicans favor the powerful while they favor the common man, yet it hasn't worked for them.
As a policy matter, I agree. But on the personal level, the Republicans have pushed some variation of elitist/out of touch in every election that I can remember since 1984. (Carter in 1980 they needed only to run against the state of the union, although I think it was used a little bit as a counterattack when Reagan was derided for his lack of intelligence or substance.) The minor variation for Clinton was "Hollywood values," which to me says "elitist" in much the same way -- out of touch with "real Americans' values."

I'm not saying this was the only factor at play in any of the elections, or that it was the only theme the Republicans ever advanced.

And yeah, this whole line of thinking on my part is kind of hand-wavy.

bkjazfan 09-09-2008 02:35 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 90494)
If Obama loses (and I still expect him to end up winning by a comfortable margin), there will of course be arguments that he lost because of race. But I think an Obama loss in this environment will merely serve as conclusive proof that Americans prefer Republicans in the White House, just as they have historically preferred Democrats to control Congress. If Obama loses, the only non-incumbent Democrats to win Presidential elections since Kennedy would be Clinton in 1992 and Carter in 1976, and in both cases you had very extenuating circumstances (Carter got elected in the aftermath of Watergate, and Clinton got elected when Perot took a significant chunk of the populist conservative voting bloc).

I think there's a reason for this, and it's not that Republicans run better/dirtier campaigns than Democrats. If that was the case, why is it that the Democrats managed to control Congress for most of the past eighty years? Rather, I think it's that voters prefer a person with conservative traits to be President, and more liberal persons to be in control of the legislature.

Quite an insightful post. I agree with what you have said here.

I am wondering though with both national economy floundering and this ill-conceived War On Terror that this could put Obama into office. One drawback with the Dems controlling Congress is their approval ratings at 9%are less than Bush's. So, I wonder if all things being equal that their control of Congress is negated and ironically the public won't look at it as a split government, so to speak? Also, many of the Dems that are coming into office are centrist if not conservative in their outlook - for example, the 44"blue dogs" in the House.


John

brucds 09-09-2008 03:00 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Must Read on Palin - Kinsley, of all people, performs the single best "rhetoric vs. reality" evisceration of this phony gimmick I've seen.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,...839724,00.html

Dee Sharp 09-09-2008 03:54 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Nice to see these two again.

look 09-09-2008 04:01 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 90494)
If Obama loses (and I still expect him to end up winning by a comfortable margin), there will of course be arguments that he lost because of race. But I think an Obama loss in this environment will merely serve as conclusive proof that Americans prefer Republicans in the White House, just as they have historically preferred Democrats to control Congress. If Obama loses, the only non-incumbent Democrats to win Presidential elections since Kennedy would be Clinton in 1992 and Carter in 1976, and in both cases you had very extenuating circumstances (Carter got elected in the aftermath of Watergate, and Clinton got elected when Perot took a significant chunk of the populist conservative voting bloc).

I think there's a reason for this, and it's not that Republicans run better/dirtier campaigns than Democrats. If that was the case, why is it that the Democrats managed to control Congress for most of the past eighty years? Rather, I think it's that voters prefer a person with conservative traits to be President, and more liberal persons to be in control of the legislature.

I'll be very impressed with your analytical skill if it does turn out that Obama wins by a comfortable margin.

As far as divided government, it seems a sensible strategy. My concern with a McCain presidency is that he will veto universal coverage. But on the other hand, if a Dem majority can't get it through with 2/3, is that McCain's fault?

Thus Spoke Elvis 09-09-2008 04:08 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
I like Kinsley a lot, but I didn't think this is a very good article.

First, Kinsley begins by mocking Palin for believing that she's "a better American" than the reader. I'd like to see where she's made such a statement. I really doubt she has, as it would have been political suicide. But even if she did make such a claim, I think she would be correct in relation to the great majority of people in this country. I don't care what one thinks of her politics (we have little evidence as to what she believes with respect to national policy), or whether one believes she's qualified to be VP (I don't think she is), she's accomplished a hell of a lot more than most people who have been born into a better life than she. I admire anyone who has lived as full and productive a life as she apparently has, and I wonder whether many of her critics would have done nearly so well if they had been in her shoes (it's not like Kinsley wasn't born into the privileged class).*

Secondly, the gist of the article is that Palin is awful because Alaska is awful. No argument here regarding the latter, but Alaska has been a welfare state well before Palin took office 18 months ago. Has Palin worked to make Alaska less despicable than it was before? Even Kinsley seems to admit this is the case, but argues that Alaska is still pretty awful. Well geez, Mike, I'm not sure anyone is capable of draining the cesspool that is Alaska in a mere eighteen months. But unlike every other Alaskan politician I'm familiar with, Palin has actually fought rather than contributed to the problem. Given the nature of Alaskan politics, that's no small feat.

*Just so we're clear, I think Barack Obama is also an incredibly impressive individual, regardless of what one thinks of his politics, and few of his critics would have been able to overcome the obstacles that he faced early in his life. On a personal level, I find Obama and Palin to both be pretty inspiring.

AemJeff 09-09-2008 05:32 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 90521)
I'll be very impressed with your analytical skill if it does turn out that Obama wins by a comfortable margin.

As far as divided government, it seems a sensible strategy. My concern with a McCain presidency is that he will veto universal coverage. But on the other hand, if a Dem majority can't get it through with 2/3, is that McCain's fault?

If he vetoes it? I'd say so, unless the Dem majority is pretty darn close to the override limit - and even then you have to imagine there are at least a few Dems beholden to Big Insurance and in safely right-wing districts who will look twice at that sort of legislation. The pressure not to disturb that particular cash cow in monumental.

AemJeff 09-09-2008 05:36 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 90523)
First, Kinsley begins by mocking Palin for believing that she's "a better American" than the reader. I'd like to see where she's made such a statement. I really doubt she has, as it would have been political suicide.

Just commenting on this narrow point. I think it's safe to to say that to many of us, Palin exudes a smugness (where have we heard that before?) that bespeaks exactly this. In fact, conservatives often give off this sort of vibe. She doesn't have to have said it for it to be legitimately in the zeitgeist.

look 09-09-2008 06:20 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 90533)
If he vetoes it? I'd say so, unless the Dem majority is pretty darn close to the override limit - and even then you have to imagine there are at least a few Dems beholden to Big Insurance and in safely right-wing districts who will look twice at that sort of legislation. The pressure not to disturb that particular cash cow in monumental.

Hi, Jeff. I don't know (really, I am cloudy on this issue). Is there a chance that McCain will ok it? Will he figure this is his only term if he doesn't, so sign it, be a hero to the masses, and flip off the GOP at the same time? The little man has been completely screwed over by big business in bed with government. What if he's just pissed off enough to do something about it?

Those Dem holdouts? What are they thinking? Is it all big money influence, or are some fiscal conservatives? Won't they fear for their re-election?

Michael 09-09-2008 06:52 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Jonah, shadenfreude is taking pleasure at someone else´s misfortune - not in one´s own martyrdom.

Peter, I wish you had explored why you think the country is more open now than in the past to ideological change - because I agree. If we are all ready to be taken into a new thing, we need lofty rhetoric as well as a clear, practical roadmap. I think Senator Obama is slowing wilting in the polls because he is not providing that much-needed roadmap. He needs to offer the electorate a clear picture of how things will look at the end of his 8 year mandate.

harkin 09-09-2008 07:15 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Home run, Jonah - Clear, concise and accurate.

Props to Peter for not employing the common BhTV tactic of 'speaking over the conservative' whenever a salient point is being made.

These two could be a succesful regular pairing.

Quote:

Jonah, shadenfreude is taking pleasure at someone else´s misfortune - not in one´s own martyrdom.
Maybe I misheard him but I thought he was looking for a 'shadenfreude'-equivilant German word to describe this.

willmybasilgrow 09-09-2008 07:36 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Peter, you are my precious baby! I loved the mirco expressions when they other guy was like, "he's a pretty exotic guy. Now, that's not code for race." You are precious, baby!

Arkie_in_CT 09-09-2008 07:40 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Peter, at 9:30, refers to Bill Clinton as having been "inexperienced." Nonsense. He was the longest tenured governor in the country and had a sterling record on economic development, jobs creation and on education policy. As Bubba himself would put it reL this notion that he was an "inexperienced" candidate for president, "That dog won't hunt."

willmybasilgrow 09-09-2008 07:46 PM

O. Campaigns as a Liberal?
 
The other guy said that. Sorry, but he doesn't.

If he did, I'd be SO much higher on him. Of course I will vote for him, but I've lost tons of enthusiasm since the Spring.

willmybasilgrow 09-09-2008 07:51 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Agreed Arkie! Good catch.

willmybasilgrow 09-09-2008 08:00 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
JG says, "It's a perfectly honorable position to say, you know, 'we're the party of what FDR would call the forgotten man.' The people who fall behind."

Why would he lie like that? He does not believe that!

Now he is talking about the supposed distinction between the parties. Reps wanna fix the "government," he says and Dems wanna fix Americans.

He is peddling this like it was new. This is from Jimmy Carter's daze.

willmybasilgrow 09-09-2008 08:08 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Agreed!

AemJeff 09-09-2008 08:27 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 90540)
Hi, Jeff. I don't know (really, I am cloudy on this issue). Is there a chance that McCain will ok it? Will he figure this is his only term if he doesn't, so sign it, be a hero to the masses, and flip off the GOP at the same time? The little man has been completely screwed over by big business in bed with government. What if he's just pissed off enough to do something about it?

Those Dem holdouts? What are they thinking? Is it all big money influence, or are some fiscal conservatives? Won't they fear for their re-election?

Let me point out that I'm speculating based on generalities. There are certainly districts in which Democrats serve whose populace won't be as keen on public health-care financing as others. They won't necessarily feel the same heat as, say, Allyson Schwartz (D - Philadelphia), my representative, does on this issue.

I think we could start an interesting game trying to predict McCain's Presidential governing style - bottom line, I don't think think there any many good bets outside of defense policy. I have to say that the prospect of a second term must be about the last thing he's thinking about right now, but two years from now, if he's still in apparently good health - who knows?

I frankly don't think that even the Democrats have enough political will to establish a useful publicly financed system in the short term (that is, the next presidential term) I think the entrenched interests are still way too strong.

Gravy 09-09-2008 08:48 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Beinart is clueless if he thinks Democratic party members aren't going to blame Obama in the event that he loses. I sure will. I don't think he will lose, but given the incredibly unpopular Republican administration that forms the context of this election and his access to more than competitive amounts of campaign funds, if he were to lose the conclusion would be, rightly, that he was a weak candidate. And I won't cut him an inch of slack if all the indications are that certain voters' irrational negative reactions to his race was a prime contributor to such a hypothetical lose. Every eligible voter has the right to vote anyway they want for any darn reason they please. The candidate's task is to get them to vote for him or her. That's Obama's job, and he has a great environment and all the tools to get it done. Since the main critique of Obama during the last half Democratic primaries process was that he was less electable than the alternative, losing would be a hugely substantial confirmation that the critics were on to something real.

willmybasilgrow 09-09-2008 09:51 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Mostly I agree. But at the same time my sense is that Peter was talking about how Dems now are not so much blaming the candidate as other people. I did not know if he really weighed in on how it would be once it is over.

But I agree with you regarding your assessment. And in fact I am now starting to have that Scream moment (pre scream) and I'm thinking things like wait a holy second! Was I basing my favorable assessment of this man on ONE SPEECH??

And things like that.

OTOH, I just have this feeling (who said you can't appeal to Democrats on an emotional level??) that he would just make a very good president.

And also, the Republicans right now are doing two things: saying what Palin is and has, and then taking all those points and saying, Obama is not this, Obama is not that. They are also in general attacking liberals for just being liberal.

What if the Obama's team attacked conservatives as offensive too (stiff, repressive, oppressive) - just list the hell out of the ways conservatives bug liberals? Could it work?

rgajria 09-10-2008 12:51 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opin...orge_Bush.html

Fatimah Ali's column that Jonah refers to.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/colum...e_decider.html

The Dick Polman column that Jonah refers to again.

rgajria 09-10-2008 01:12 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 90490)

Jonah's take of the Democrats at their convention as talking to "victims" and "cultivating grievances," while calling the Republicans at theirs being "much more upbeat," completely ignores the reality that the entire RNC had as its dominant themes the "tyranny of the east coast elites" and the "dominance of the liberal media." Apart from a few billion reminders that JOHN MCCAIN WAS A POW, and a bunch of disparaging remarks directed at Obama, was there anything else?

Yup, Changing liberal Washington and make it conservative Washington. Senator McCain had a great time with a stripper. That made me really jealous. School Desks are provided by troops. And so on.

Francoamerican 09-10-2008 01:31 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 90494)
I think there's a reason for this, and it's not that Republicans run better/dirtier campaigns than Democrats. If that was the case, why is it that the Democrats managed to control Congress for most of the past eighty years? Rather, I think it's that voters prefer a person with conservative traits to be President, and more liberal persons to be in control of the legislature.

If you mean by "liberal" the ability to push pork-barrel legislation through Congress for the benefit of constituents; and by "conservative" the ability to drum up support for the national security state and promote a generally incompetent foreign policy (with three hugh blunders in the past 60 years: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq; and many minor ones along the way), then I suppose this is an accurate analysis.

bjkeefe 09-10-2008 03:53 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 90523)
I like Kinsley a lot, but I didn't think this is a very good article.

First, Kinsley begins by mocking Palin for believing that she's "a better American" than the reader. I'd like to see where she's made such a statement.

I'll second AemJeff. sort of, by asking: did you not listen to her speech at the RNC? Maybe she didn't say, explicitly, "I am a better American," but the whole thing was a non-stop trumpeting of this theme, and for exactly the reasons that Kinsley lays out in his lede.

seyoyo 09-10-2008 04:21 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
The Republicans seem not to realise that the 97% voting of Obama with his party can be described as votes in opposition to the Bush/DeLay/K-Street agenda.

They're burnishing Obama's not-Bush credentials.

benjy 09-10-2008 10:56 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
My first exposure to the Peter/Jonah pairing, and I have to say the level is extremely high. Both make excellent points and push back perfectly against each other's arguments--my favorite kind of diavlog, where the correct answer lies in a combination of the points made by both parties. I'd like to hear more about Jonah's philosophical/practical objections to liberalism--i.e., how would he respond to Glenn Loury's points in his last diavlog about our societal responsibilities to try to ensure that people have at least a decent education, etc. to give them a somewhat fair chance of success in life. Not that we'll ever make it equal odds of course, but should we do better than we do now, and of course how do you do that or pay for it without government and taxes, and at least some income redistribution in the sense that many people simply don't have enough money to send their kids to private school, but we say that we'll all pay for their kids to go to school, because we see public education as a basic right. I've noticed that even McCain mentions frequently that what good is the right to go to school if its a failing school, and this is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. I actually think he means it, although I'm not sure what he'd be willing to do to actuate it, and whether his idea on how to achieve it would be the right plan. Anyway, the philosophical/moral argument on what level of equal opportunity we should try to and are able to achieve is the one I'd be interested in hearing between Glenn and Jonah, or Jonah and Peter, and we at BhTV can decide later how to best effect our decision and have our fearless leader get our plan to the policy makers...

Thus Spoke Elvis 09-10-2008 11:11 AM

Re: The State of the Race
 
I agree, I think a Glenn/Jonah pairing would be interesting. I could see it being either really great or really awful. Glenn and John are my favorite bloggingheads pairing, but it would be nice to see how they'd interact with some other people.

benjy 09-10-2008 12:24 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thus Spoke Elvis (Post 90598)
I agree, I think a Glenn/Jonah pairing would be interesting. I could see it being either really great or really awful. Glenn and John are my favorite bloggingheads pairing, but it would be nice to see how they'd interact with some other people.

It'd be good if they both listened and were honest, rather than both just tried to "win". Admittedly a substantial if. Glenn and John are the best, but with someone from the right we could have Glenn push back on their arguments, and them push back on Glenn's, and get to the bottom of these debates once and for all. Catharsis for the Bloggingheads masses! Oh, and Jonah...Obama, and McCain for that matter, aren't talking about government as the ONLY way to serve a cause greater than yourself, just as one of the ways, and maybe one that we need more of (A topic for your next debate ;)). They're both in favor of all the causes you mentioned too. Don't worry/promote your book sales so much, Americans love their consumer goods, bad tv and liberty too much to be in danger of becoming a collectivist fascist state. Now corporate zombies on the other hand...

look 09-10-2008 08:49 PM

Re: The State of the Race
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 90553)
I frankly don't think that even the Democrats have enough political will to establish a useful publicly financed system in the short term (that is, the next presidential term) I think the entrenched interests are still way too strong.

I found this article. It seems that by starting with just universal coverage, Obama is utilizing his 'incremental change' tactic, which I think is reasonable:
Quote:

So it is downright shocking that there was a tussle over what the 2008 Democratic platform would say about the party's generations-long, bedrock commitment to health care for all Americans. In short, presumptive nominee Barack Obama did not draft a statement keeping that pledge. He presented instead his plan as one that would provide "access to" affordable and comprehensive health care. A coalition of liberal activists and Hillary Clinton supporters managed to negotiate a change so that the platform says the party is "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care." Inclusion of the word "guaranteed" was the crucial point.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...t_the_hea.html
In January, the children's health insurance bill was voted down by some Dems, and now it won't be brought up again before the election:
Quote:

Congressional Democrats have scrapped plans for another vote on expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, thus sparing Republicans from a politically difficult vote just weeks before elections this fall.
Before the summer recess, Democrats had vowed repeatedly to force another vote on the popular program. But Democrats say they have shifted course after concluding that President Bush would not sign their legislation and that they could not override a veto.
***
The child health program has become an issue in some congressional races. In almost every speech, Kay Barnes, a Democrat running for Congress in northwest Missouri, criticizes Rep. Sam Graves, a Republican, for voting against the bill last year. Graves said the bill would have allowed illegal immigrants and some rich people to get "free taxpayer-funded health care."
***
A few House Republicans in tight races might switch sides and vote for the bill, in an effort to win the approbation of voters, Democrats say. But supporters of the bill believe that they would still not have enough votes to override a veto by Bush.

Hispanic, black and Asian American members of Congress have complained that the bill does not cover legal immigrants, who are now generally barred from benefits under Medicaid and the children's health program during their first five years in the United States.

Many Democrats would like to lift those restrictions. But if they tried to do so, they could draw Congress into a bitter debate over immigration policy.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNK712PS9C.DTL
Here is the voting record. 12 Dems counted 'not voting' and 1 who voted no. Some Reps voted yes:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvo...hp?cs_id=16856

loumur 09-11-2008 08:25 AM

Re: The State of the Race (race indeed)
 
I think it's so crazy that Obama, who was born of mixed black & white parents (essentially 50% of each) and was raised by a white mom, in a white cultural environment, all of the sudden becomes black by default. It's ludicrous that he, or anyone else for that matter, default to being a member of a racial group for convenience or advantage. And even more ridiculous that Americans are so ignorant about race that we continue these absurd categorizations. As a matter of statistical fact, everyone that is alive on the planet today is directly genetically linked to anyone that was alive ~3000 years ago. In other words we all have a common ancestor. Liberals and conservatives alike are discussing lipstick on pigs and bulldogs. This election will come down to proven character and judgment. Because, the economic and international issues are extremely complex and cannot be addressed, never mind solved, by anyone individual, judgment and character will have to do. Mr. Obama's hollow promises, empty rhetoric, and apparent naivety do not inspire the perception in me that he has either. Tax breaks for 95% of Americans. Try living in NJ on $86K/yr per household and saving to send your kids to school, or making mortgage payments, then get taxed more to meet Mr. Obama's 95%. Please...

Ocean 09-11-2008 09:50 AM

Re: The State of the Race (race indeed)
 
How happy are you with the way the economy has been in the last eight years of Republicans in the White House?

Who has gotten the highest tax breaks in this country in the last eight years?

Has the war in Iraq affected the economy in any way?

Why don't we have more alternate sources of energy already?

Where has the middle class gone in the last eight years?

Do you want more of that?

Please...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.