• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diablos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Obviously this will be when he switches parties, revealing that he only ran as a republican in the senate because he knew he couldn't beat Martha Coakley in the Dem primaries but knew he could take advantage of her lack of personality in the general election.
Huh? No... I expect Brown to stay a Republican for life. In fact if he lets the GOP in Washington get the best of him, I can easily see him drifting further and further to the right.

Hell I'll be surprised if a year or so from now when the "WOW! A Republican senator from Massachusetts! WOW!" shock fizzles out that Rush Limbaugh doesn't start demanding he switch parties like he says with McCain and Powell.
Now this may prove to be true. Depends on how close Brown stays to his "people's seat" and "I vote with Massachusetts in mind first" attitude.
 
Diablos said:
Part of me thinks he has a shot at VP or maybe even Pres, but then again, if he's to the left of Snowe...

Not to mention, he's pro-choice, accepts evolution, and at times can be an advocate for bigger banks/government, among other things.


http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/scott-brown-mass-senate-race-011910

This will absolutely kill any and all chances he has at a presidential nomination, period. If he was a democrat, maybe. But I recall a survey a while ago that said the christian right wing was somewhere around a full third of the republican voting base.

If Brown runs as a candidate, moderate republicans will love him but he'll get destroyed in the Southern States, just like Romney did. Some quick and dirty websearching brought me to this:

But moderate Republicans aren't the ones who could derail a Romney candidacy. His obstacle is the evangelical base--a voting bloc that now makes up 30 percent of the Republican electorate and that wields particular influence in primary states like South Carolina and Virginia. Just as it is hard to overestimate the importance of evangelicalism in the modern Republican Party, it is nearly impossible to overemphasize the problem evangelicals have with Mormonism. Evangelicals don't have the same vague anti-LDS prejudice that some Americans do. For them it's a doctrinal thing, based on very specific theological disputes that can't be overcome by personality or charm or even shared positions on social issues. Romney's journalistic boosters either don't understand these doctrinal issues or try to sidestep them. But ignoring them won't make them go away. To evangelicals, Mormonism isn't just another religion. It's a cult.

from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html

I'm not sure how reliable that site is, but that's not the first time I've seen that. A pro-choice, left leaning republican like Brown has absolutely no chance of winning that base over.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Sort of.

The catch. Wilson was the liar, there's nothing to disagree about. So true, he apologized for yelling, but not for lying his ass off, which I think a full apology would include. So I've always thought of it as an half apology, sort of like when people say, "I'm sorry if you were offended."
I don't think Wilson was necessarily a liar either, how to put this, both men were lying and telling the truth, argh, more like both sides of the argument are actually not addressing the subject. While it's true that none of Obama's proposals have ever given illegals coverage they have never denied illegals coverage either, although they've been denied buying into the plan even if they had the money to do so. So that, coupled with the fact that an emergency room has to treat everyone means that currently illegals get treated(as it should be) and under any plan proposed illegals would continue getting coverage(again as it should be). So while Obama's plan never explicitly gave illegals coverage it never denied them medical attention either which means the default action of providing coverage continues, hence if you wanted to it is fair to say that any plan Obama supports does indeed support treating illegal immigrants by the mere fact that it does not change our established position of treating illegals.

But honestly both sides position on this issue is completely retarded as who wants to deny emergency treatment for illegals, let alone anyone? The real question regarding treatment of illegals should not have been do we treat them or not but what is done with them afterwards and on that issue both sides are too cowardly to even address it so we're stuck with the half truths illegals are covered or aren't covered. Pathetic.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
mAcOdIn said:
I don't think Wilson was necessarily a liar either, how to put this, both men were lying and telling the truth, argh, more like both sides of the argument are actually not addressing the subject. While it's true that none of Obama's proposals have ever given illegals coverage they have never denied illegals coverage either, although they've been denied buying into the plan even if they had the money to do so. So that, coupled with the fact that an emergency room has to treat everyone means that currently illegals get treated(as it should be) and under any plan proposed illegals would continue getting coverage(again as it should be). So while Obama's plan never explicitly gave illegals coverage it never denied them medical attention either which means the default action of providing coverage continues, hence if you wanted to it is fair to say that any plan Obama supports does indeed support treating illegal immigrants by the mere fact that it does not change our established position of treating illegals.

But honestly both sides position on this issue is completely retarded as who wants to deny emergency treatment for illegals, let alone anyone? The real question regarding treatment of illegals should not have been do we treat them or not but what is done with them afterwards and on that issue both sides are too cowardly to even address it so we're stuck with the half truths illegals are covered or aren't covered. Pathetic.
The link I posted spells it out pretty clearly. Wilson was lying (or wrong, if you prefer). You have to expand well beyond what Obama said to get into the argument you are.

No argument on the last points though. The entire argument about illegal immigrants is just so backwards.
 

Bishman

Member
1. Reconciliation! 2. ??? 3. Profit!
by Nate Silver @ 4:40 PM

I'm a little surprised that some people are still pushing a "reconciliation only" strategy on health care, particularly when passing the Senate bill with a "sidecar" of fixes through reconciliation would quite clearly be the dominant strategy. But just suppose that the only two options are "reconciliation only" and to pass the Senate's bill as is.

Let's take another look at that Kaiser poll I cited earlier today and look at the popular elements of the health care bill -- those which poll at a net favorability of +10 or better. Which could be implemented through a "reconciliation only" strategy? It's hard to say for sure, but here is a reasonable guess given the constraints imposed by the process:

4298028693_67cb3b7f18_o.png


You could probably -- not certainly -- get a public option through reconciliation, and the public option is popular, polling at a net +22. However, there are are least five provisions which are more popular than the public option that you almost certainly couldn't get through reconciliation only, including the insurance exchange, guaranteed issue, allowing children to stay on their parents' plans though age 25, guarantees on the acturial value of private insurance policies, and limitations on age rating. Nor could reconciliation ban gender rating or or eliminate lifetime coverage limits, which also poll well.

"Reconciliation only" might be better than the status quo. But it's almost certainly worse than the Senate's bill, as is. And it's categorically worse than the Senate's bill with a reconciliation sidecar. But why take half a loaf when you can get a quarter?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/1-reconciliation-2-3-profit.html
 

mAcOdIn

Member
GhaleonEB said:
The link I posted spells it out pretty clearly. Wilson was lying (or wrong, if you prefer). You have to expand well beyond what Obama said to get into the argument you are.

No argument on the last points though. The entire argument about illegal immigrants is just so backwards.
I don't think your link is really addressing the issue correctly either.

I still don't think Wilson was lying, nor do I think Obama was lying. I look at it like this, if someone is proposing a huge sweeping reform bill that addresses basically the whole of the industry then I believe it's fair to say that not addressing an existing practice is ultimately the same as silently supporting that practice.

I believe this is a failure of language because what "you lie" means when saying that a bill won't cover illegal aliens is completely dependent on what the listener knows before the exchange. If I knew nothing of emergency rooms having to treat everyone I would assume that "you lie" means that this bill now means illegals were covered when they were not before hand, which is obviously false, however if I heard the discussion armed with the knowledge that emergency rooms already have to treat illegal aliens then "you lie" means that under the proposed bill they continue to receive treatment because the bill by design completely ignores the status quo.

So whether Wilson is a liar or not completely depends on the intelligence and foreknowledge of the individuals hearing his statement. If a person believes that currently illegals do not receive treatment at our expense then they will hear Wilson's statement and, erroneously, conclude that the bill adds a measure providing for treatment of illegals. Now that probably was Wilson's agenda, because in this dance Republicans are too afraid(thank God) to take their ideology to the logical conclusion of flat out denying illegals coverage and that coupled with the Democrats unwillingness to flat out state they support treating illegals(although some have came out and mentioned it once or twice,I think even Obama did once) allows for this basic cloud of ignorance on what is currently happening within the country and allows people to mistakenly assume that the proposed bill at the time did or did not cover illegals. I do however understand why Democrats do not want to beat the average American citizen over the head regarding the fact that illegals already do receive emergency treatment in this country.

For the purpose of this bill though, since we do not have a clear starting point in either parties position regarding the current treatment of illegal aliens we're left with a curious position in my opinion. Because for the Democrats pushing this bill it's best if the general populace remains ignorant and assumes they don't receive coverage currently because by not addressing it in this bill one would assume they'd get no coverage whatsoever, thus not angering those who are xenophobic while those in the know either remain silent about the obvious inaccuracy and people wanting more push for explicit guarantees that can be approved or denied based on the current political wind, which right now leans towards not explicitly stating illegals can get actual insurance through the plan. But for Republicans it's also beneficial for the masses to be relatively ignorant because they now win either way, as stating that the bill does allow illegals to get treated on the governments dime harms the current bill with xenophobic, racist whatever, remains half true, yet since the public remains ignorant on the whole thing they aren't heavily pushed by the masses to explicitly deny illegals coverage, nor do they really want to do that because of what it'd do to their Hispanic vote. So it's a funny position where both sides actually benefit from the general ignorance of the population and where keeping them ignorant affords both sides more wiggle room than if the population were correctly informed from the start. For instance, if Wilson wanted to be less misleading he'd have not said "you lie," but instead "block illegals from getting emergency room treatment like they do now," but we all know that's a bridge too far for Republicans.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
mAcOdIn said:
I don't think your link is really addressing the issue correctly either.

I still don't think Wilson was lying, nor do I think Obama was lying. I look at it like this, if someone is proposing a huge sweeping reform bill that addresses basically the whole of the industry then I believe it's fair to say that not addressing an existing practice is ultimately the same as silently supporting that practice.
I'll be honest, it's really a debate I have no interest in getting into. I think the framing you've outlined strays far from the literal context of Obama/Wilson's statement.
 
GhaleonEB said:
I'll be honest, it's really a debate I have no interest in getting into. I think the framing you've outlined strays far from the literal context of Obama/Wilson's statement.

Obama said that illegals would not be covered. Is that a lie? The bill did nothing to identify applicants as US citizens, therefore it is possible (likely) that illegals would get covered. If nothing else, it's tacit approval.

It's like Bush saying he doesn't support torture, but is OK with waterboarding. Some think waterboarding is torture, so does that mean Bush was lying? It's all symantics.
 

gcubed

Member
Pimpwerx said:
Nice. I prove once again, that it's about quality, not quantity. :D PEACE.

i figure i took up at least 7 post arguing with you, so you could have been off the list without my help! :lol
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Mr. Dobalina said:
Obama said that illegals would not be covered.
Incorrect. He said this:

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants," Obama said. "This, too, is false..."
The reforms would not insure illegal immigrants. Full stop. Nothing in the reform package changes the status quo for illegal immigrants. That was his simple point. You have to expand beyond that point to make the argument you are making, which is that he claimed the reforms would roll back the status quo for illegals by making it so they could not purchase any insurance in any situation. That's a topic for discussion, and perhaps what Joe Wilson had in mind, but it wasn't what Obama was talking about.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
GhaleonEB said:
I'll be honest, it's really a debate I have no interest in getting into. I think the framing you've outlined strays far from the literal context of Obama/Wilson's statement.
Well if I were to drop all context and go with just the end result if the bill had been passed then I'd have to conclude that Obama was the liar as illegals would be still getting emergency medical treatment. Not that it matters to me, I can let this be my last post about the matter as it's done and buried and pretty fucking irrelevant at this point nor do I really want to be seen as defending Wilson because while I don't think he was actually lying I do think his actual intent was to deceive but unfortunately I think that was also Obama's intent as well.

I do find the whole thing fascinating though, how politically, well I guess anything in reality, being truthful or not depends on the knowledge of listener has beforehand. I'm a little torn because I like things clearly spelled out at all times, to me the final comprehensive end result of a bill is the truth, not the actual limited and narrow intent of a bill, so the idea that one should purposely discard things they know as true or false and instead focus on only what is currently in front of them ignoring the whole picture kind of pisses me off, I don't really want a society like that, nor do I want political discussion to remain at that level. But, on the other hand, I truly worry what decisions our general population would make were they fully informed of everything, it may just be that a general ignorance is the only thing that allows anything to actually happen in regards to some issues.
GhaleonEB said:
Incorrect. He said this:


The reforms would not insure illegal immigrants. Full stop. Nothing in the reform package changes the status quo for illegal immigrants. That was his simple point. You have to expand beyond that point to make the argument you are making, which is that he claimed the reforms would roll back the status quo for illegals by making it so they could not purchase any insurance in any situation. That's a topic for discussion, and perhaps what Joe Wilson had in mind, but it wasn't what Obama was talking about.
A fair point you're making, dependent on what Americans actually deem as "insure." I think most people would place any kind of treatment as some kind of insurance. technically you're right as they would not be on the roles of any government insurance plan but I think that's semantics if they'd still receive some of the benefits that people on insurance get.

Of course my gripe with that is that catastrophic treatment be considered some type of insurance to begin with instead of just being some understood standard thing that all people get, that some people equate it with a level of service you need to be able to purchase is kind of frightening to me.
 
Without getting into too much specifics, within the healthcare framework illegal immigrants do not get a free ride. This is what Obama was addressing in the presidential address and Wilson's remark was out of bounds. If an illegal immigrant gets critically injured during an accident, then hell yes I want our system to fix him up. What kind of sick society would leave him dying on the road? We're not in some 3rd world....nevermind. Even a 3rd world country wouldn't do this. This is not a USA issue, this is a humanitarian issue. For talking so much about American Exceptionalism, we sure try as much as possible to taint it. The healthcare workers should not be responsible for checking up patients' passports. That's the Customs job. Hippocratic oath, before anything else.
 
RustyNails said:
It absolutely disgusts me to know there are politicians and supporters of a party who support this inhumanity.

This is why we have to get this health care bill passed as quickly as we can so people can stop dying without insurance.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
The whole illegal immigration debate is fucking silly.

As I said before the issue should never have been do we or do we not treat illegals, I think it's a given we should, but what to do afterwards. You either allow them to stay or deport them now if we're not deporting them(for whatever reason) why the fuck should they not be able to buy into some kind of insurance plan if they could afford it? That makes no sense.

So I think the Republican argument was flawed down the line, I can handle the position of deporting them but I don't see what that has to do with pre-treatment or while waiting to be deported(if such a thing were to occur).

Honestly though, I question if whether or not the Republican party really wants to not give coverage to illegals, they had plenty of time to stop the practice as well, so if Obama tacitly approves of it by nature of not stopping it with his bills then the Republicans also tacitly approved by nature of them not stopping it when they were in power. And honestly, I don't think many voters are really for this either, most people I talk to say everyone should buy their own health care so they're against giving it to them, hey, fair enough, but when asked what they think should happen if they see something happen they almost always say they want the person to get help. I think many Republican voters have a disconnect from reality where they vote on how they want things to work rather than how things work in actuality. None of us really want to live in Mexico as evident of none of us fucking moving down there in droves. No Republicans are actually against immigration either. What they fail to ever grasp is the concept of immediacy, if I'm not getting food for my family waiting a few years for a green card isn't really an option, necessity forces many peoples hands. And we're not even talking about stealing, raping, murdering here, we're talking about crossing an imaginary line in the sand or water here. So they become criminals by default but this is quite literally the most victimless crime I can fathom, crossing a border and then working for yourself, how terrible, what a crime.

Perhaps it's not a disconnect from reality but a fear that recognizing it somehow encourages it, basically like abstinence. Of course they'd rather their kid practice protected sex over unprotected sex but they wont budge from that abstinence line because of this idea that even acknowledging it somehow encourages it or means you condone it. If anything I'd say it's a lack of maturity. We'd all like everyone to afford their own insurance, we'd all like good illegals to be able to come here legally and promptly but what happens in the inevitable circumstances that this does not or can not occur?

Or maybe I'm trying to give a lot of Republicans more credit than they deserve.

Edit: RiskyChris, even with this bill people will die without insurance, this bill is a long way from what I hope is all of our goal of 100% coverage.
 
mAcOdIn said:
I think many Republican voters have a disconnect from reality where they vote on how they want things to work rather than how things work in actuality.
Why do you think that's the case? Its a definitely scary prospect, thats for sure.

In an ideal world, an illegal immigrant getting hit by a truck would be treated and let go. Its not the hospital's job nor the doctor's or nurses' job on catching illegal aliens. We have other measures in place to catch them, but hospital is not one of them. Otherwise, this will cause them to not seek medical assistance in emergency needs at the risk of getting deported. This is cruel. Now I'm not a proponent of Amnesty or giving benefits to illegal immigrants. Far from it. But where health matters, nothing else should. We should not let people die on the streets because they're illegal aliens. We should not let women avoid hospitals for childbirth at the risk of getting deported. C'mon, this is not us. What are we becoming?
 
mAcOdIn said:
So they become criminals by default but this is quite literally the most victimless crime I can fathom, crossing a border and then working for yourself, how terrible, what a crime.

Which brings up the issue of the free movement of labor. Neoliberalism has successfully entrenched the idea that capital should be able to freely move between borders. I think if one accepts neoliberalism (or globalization), then one is morally obligated to accept the free movement of labor as well. This, of course, means the complete dissolution of national borders as far as the movement of people is concerned.
 
Dang, I didn't make the top 101 poster list.

I mostly just post here, and in Fitness and NBA-GAF. I guess I just don't post much in general.

Anyway, I've been reading a lot how Obama and the WH are focusing on retooling their message. But I also hope they focus on actually getting things done. Obama can only give so many speeches before people start wondering where the bacon is. Obama can talk about being a "fighter" but we need to eventually see it.

Obama certainly didn't look like a fighter when he cut back-room deals with Pharma and let a few rural senators drag the bill for months and get away with bribery. Some of us here on PoliGAF got criticized for saying this but it truly seemed like Obama was just concerned with getting a bill with the word "Healthcare" stamped on it that could get 60 votes rather than fighting for a quality bill.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
empty vessel said:
Which brings up the issue of the free movement of labor. Neoliberalism has successfully entrenched the idea that capital should be able to freely move between borders. I think if one accepts neoliberalism (or globalization), then one is morally obligated to accept the free movement of labor as well. This, of course, means the complete dissolution of national borders as far as the movement of people is concerned.
That's a good point, I was thinking the "it's stupid" argument was good enough but you're right, if people's money and companies can move across borders why not the people?
The Chosen One said:
Anyway, I've been reading a lot how Obama and the WH are focusing on retooling their message. But I also hope they focus on actually getting things done. Obama can only give so many speeches before people start wondering where the bacon is. Obama can talk about being a "fighter" but we need to eventually see it.

Obama certainly didn't look like a fighter when he cut back-room deals with Pharma and let a few rural senators drag the bill for months and get away with bribery. Some of us here on PoliGAF got criticized for saying this but it truly seemed like Obama was just concerned with getting a bill with the word "Healthcare" stamped on it that could get 60 votes rather than fighting for a quality bill.
The thing with Obama is that he's a follower disguised as a leader in a leaders position. People give him props for how close he's gotten regarding health care, well it's pretty easy to get far when you go to the powers that be and ask them what they want, Bush could have asked congress for that shit and passed shitloads of shit at the end, big deal. A leader redefines what we thought was possible instead of asking others what should be possible and telling them to go for it. If I were to describe Obama it would be "empty." He has his own agenda of course but it seems like his agenda is the checklist itself and not the specifics.

The saddest thing in my opinion about Obama though, is that even though I don't consider him an effective leader depending on whether the Dem's keep power or not he may still get a lot of good stuff done. Better to be a pushover follower than a stubborn ineffective leader wannabe, assuming the people doing the pushing aren't worse than where we're at now. So long as he holds the line and doesn't move backwards he won't be as bad a President as many will claim and in that context may actually be a decent President in relation to past American Presidents.

I really hate this because I never thought I'd actually want Democrats in power as I hate them as much as Republicans but Republicans have gone nuts this past decade but I absolutely don't see myself trusting a Republican candidate for quite a while now so long as they keep this hive mind shit going where all the Republicans are interchangeable with each other.
RustyNails said:
Why do you think that's the case? Its a definitely scary prospect, thats for sure.

In an ideal world, an illegal immigrant getting hit by a truck would be treated and let go. Its not the hospital's job nor the doctor's or nurses' job on catching illegal aliens. We have other measures in place to catch them, but hospital is not one of them. Otherwise, this will cause them to not seek medical assistance in emergency needs at the risk of getting deported. This is cruel. Now I'm not a proponent of Amnesty or giving benefits to illegal immigrants. Far from it. But where health matters, nothing else should. We should not let people die on the streets because they're illegal aliens. We should not let women avoid hospitals for childbirth at the risk of getting deported. C'mon, this is not us. What are we becoming?
Fuck if I know and that's just my anecdotal analysis of the ones I know. Probably the same type of switch in their brain that makes them prone to believe so devoutly in religious shit enables them to so fiercely defend their political ideology even when one points out the flaw to them and they recognize the flaw.
 
Plumbob said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/joe-wilson-apologizes-for_n_281541.html

"Not long after the speech ended, Wilson issued an apology. "This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill," he said. "While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility." Wilson also called the White House to apologize."

He might still be an idiot during the SOTU, but I doubt he will shout again.

He apologized...and in his apology, he called him a liar again;

"While I disagree with the President's statement..."

The President's statement was a statement of fact, not opinion; there was no coverage for illegal aliens in any of the legislation that he was discussing.
 

Dooraven

Member
Reid: I'll Vote For Bernanke, But 'Support Is Not Unconditional'

While a number of Democratic senators have announced their opposition to giving Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a second term, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) released a statement today saying he will in fact vote for Bernanke, but that he expects the chairman to do more to "ensure families can access the credit they need to buy or keep their home, send their children to college or start a small business."

"While I will vote for his confirmation, my support is not unconditional. I know Chairman Bernanke is committed to transparency and accountability, and that is why I will hold him to the highest standards of both. The Senate will continue to demand visible and responsible results for the people we represent," Reid said.

Reid said he met with Bernanke yesterday to discuss the chairman's second term. "I made it clear that to merit confirmation, Chairman Bernanke must redouble his efforts," Reid said. "He has assured me he will soon outline plans for making that happen, and I eagerly await them."

TPM.
 
I dont know if this was posted here or not, but I didnt see a thread with it, and since I cant make one yet just thought I'd post it here. I figured you guys would like it. Sorry if old.

healthscatter2.png
 
McLaughlin Group shows how utterly fucked up the whole political commentary scene is. Professional hacks or kooks for the Right and serious yet bores for the Left.
 

Kraftwerk

Member
I've had this question for a while and have asked many people to discuss it but it always gets derailed so i hope i can get some insights here.I don't want to seem like a conspiracy nut job or anything just a simple honest question.
In the grand design..the master plan or whatever you want to call it ,overall when you look at it from a distance is there any difference between these politicians? i mean they seem to have different opinions but the path's intertwine at the bottom.I just don't understand why people go at each other like this. Forgive me if i posted a wrong question for this topic just seemed to fit here.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Logos said:
In the grand design..the master plan or whatever you want to call it ,overall when you look at it from a distance is there any difference between these politicians?

They all want to make the world a better place, but they want the credit for it.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
ToxicAdam said:
They all want to make the world a better place, but they want the credit for it.


Not really. Some of them just want to make a shit ton of money while making their own stamp on history. Or they may be in it just for the power and prestige.
 
Logos said:
I've had this question for a while and have asked many people to discuss it but it always gets derailed so i hope i can get some insights here.I don't want to seem like a conspiracy nut job or anything just a simple honest question.
In the grand design..the master plan or whatever you want to call it ,overall when you look at it from a distance is there any difference between these politicians? i mean they seem to have different opinions but the path's intertwine at the bottom.I just don't understand why people go at each other like this. Forgive me if i posted a wrong question for this topic just seemed to fit here.

Ideally, politicians are in it to improve society as a whole. (REALISTICALLY, more than a few are in it to enrich themselves financially, but that's another matter.)

They differ (at least in the US) in the means by which they think this can be accomplished.


The right wing in the US is typically for little to no government regulation of private industry, as little taxation as possible, massive amounts of social regulation (abortion bans, flag burning bans, drug laws, little separation of church and state), and large amounts of military spending. They tend to be described as "conservatives" because of an outspoken resistance to any kind of social change away from what you might have found on 1950's television.

The left wing typically promotes government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and separation of church and state; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class. You'll typically find things such as social security, welfare programs, equal and civil rights movements and universal healthcare being favorite positions of the left.

Since the two positions don't have a lot of common ground (9-11 was about the last time both parties universally agreed on anything) there's a lot of shouting and finger pointing when either side attempts to get anything done.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
Not really. Some of them just want to make a shit ton of money while making their own stamp on history. Or they may be in it just for the power and prestige.


Well, I shouldn't have said world. More like 'their corner of the world'.
 
Op-Ed from David Plouffe.

The Democratic Party got a resounding wake-up call from the voters of Massachusetts on Tuesday. But it's long been clear that 2010 would be a challenging election year for our party.

With few exceptions, the first off-year election in a new president's term has led to big gains for the minority party -- this was true for Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. After two election cycles in which Democrats won most of the close races and almost all of the big ones, Democrats have much more fragile turf to defend this year than usual. Add to that a historic economic crisis, stubborn unemployment and the pain that both have inflicted on millions of Americans, and you have a recipe for a white-knuckled ride for many of our candidates.

But not if Democrats do what the American people sent them to Washington to do.

In 2006 and 2008, voters sent an unmistakable message: We want decisive change. This was not just a change of political parties. Instead of a government that works for the entitled and special interests, a government that looks out for Wall Street, they wanted a government that works better for them, a government that plays the role it should to help foster the security of the middle class.

Many of last year's accomplishments are down payments on those principles.

We still have much to do before November, and time is running short. Every race has unique characteristics, but there are a few general things that Democrats can do to strengthen our hand.
ad_icon

-- Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay.
Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside. (P.S.: Health care is a jobs creator.)

-- We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them.
Even without a difficult fiscal situation, the government can have only so much direct impact on job creation, on top of the millions of jobs created by the president's early efforts to restart the economy. There are some terrific ideas that we can implement, from tax credits for small businesses to more incentives for green jobs, but full recovery will happen only when the private sector begins hiring in earnest. That's why Democrats must create a strong foundation for long-term growth by addressing health care, energy and education reform. We must also show real leadership by passing some politically difficult measures to help stabilize the economy in the short term. Voters are always smarter than they are given credit for. We need to make our case on the economy and jobs -- and yes, we can remind voters where Republican policies led us -- and if we do, without apology and with force, it will have impact.

-- Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy. Rarely does a congressional vote or issue lend itself to this kind of powerful localization. If GOP challengers want to run ads criticizing the recovery act as wasteful, Democratic candidates should lift up the police officers, teachers and construction workers in their state or district, those who are protecting our communities, teaching our children and repairing our roads thanks to the Democrats' leadership. Highlight the small-business owners who have kept their doors open through projects funded by the act.

The recovery act has been stigmatized. We need to paint the real picture, in human terms, of what it meant in 2010. In future elections, it will be clear to all that instead of another Great Depression, Democrats broke the back of the recession with not a single Republican vote in the House. In the long run, this will haunt Republicans, especially since they made the mess.

-- Don't accept any lectures on spending. The GOP took us from a $236 billion surplus when President Bush took office to a $1.3 trillion deficit, with unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars and the Medicare prescription drug program. Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility has never been matched in our country's history. We have potent talking points on health care, honest budgeting and cuts in previously sacrosanct programs. Republicans will try to win disingenuously by running as outsiders. We must make them own their record of disastrous economic policies, exploding deficits, and a failure to even attempt to solve our health care and energy challenges.

During the campaign, who will be whispering in Republican ears? Watching GOP leaders talking about health care the past few days, it was easy to imagine lobbyists and big health insurance executives leaning over their shoulders, urging death to health insurance reform. When it comes to cracking down on the banks and passing tough financial regulatory reform, GOP leaders will be dancing to the tune of Wall Street lobbyists and opposing tougher oversight, as if the financial crisis never happened. We need to lay it out plainly: If you put the GOP back in charge, lobbyists and huge corporate special interests will be back in the driver's seat. Workers and families will get run over, just like they did in the past decade.

-- "Change" is not just about policies. In 2006, Democrats promised to drain the swamp and won back Congress largely because the American people soured on corrupt Republican leadership. Many ethics reforms were put in place by the Democrats. But a recent Gallup poll showed that a record 55 percent of Americans think members of Congress have low ethics, up from only 21 percent in 2000. In particular, we have to make sure the freshman and sophomore members of the House who won in part on transparency and reform issues can show they are delivering. The Republicans will suggest they have changed their spots, but the GOP cannot hold a candle to us on reform issues. Let's make sure we own this space.

-- Run great campaigns.
Many Democrats won congressional and statewide races in 2006 and 2008 with ideal conditions. Some races could have been won with mediocre campaigns. Not this year. Our campaigns can leave no stone unturned, from believing in the power of grass-roots volunteers and voter registration, to using technology and data innovatively, to raising money -- especially with big corporate interests now freed up to dump hundreds of millions of dollars to elect those who will do their bidding. Democratic candidates must do everything well. Each one must make sure that the first-time voters from 2008 living in your state or district -- more than 15 million nationwide -- are in their sights. Build a relationship with those voters, organize them and educate them. On Nov. 3, many races are sure to be decided by just a few thousand if not a few hundred votes. These voters can make the difference. We have to show them that their 2008 votes mattered, and passing health insurance reform is one way to start.

-- No bed-wetting. This will be a tough election for our party and for many Republican incumbents as well. Instead of fearing what may happen, let's prove that we have more than just the brains to govern -- that we have the guts to govern. Let's fight like hell, not because we want to preserve our status, but because we sincerely believe too many everyday Americans will continue to lose if Republicans and special interests win.

This country is at a crossroads. We are trying to boost the economy in the short term while also doing the long-term work on health care, energy, education and financial reform that will lay a strong foundation for decades to come. Let's remember why we won in 2008 and deliver on what we promised. If Democrats will show the country we can lead when it's hard, we may not have perfect election results, but November will be nothing like the nightmare that talking heads have forecast.

David Plouffe, campaign manager of Obama for America and Obama-Biden 2008, is the author of "Audacity to Win."
 

Diablos

Member
McCain says something smart for once:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), co-crafter of landmark campaign finance legislation in his career, said he thought not much could be done to counter the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to lift long-held restrictions on corporate donations to political candidates.

"I think that there's going to be, over time, a backlash," McCain said. "Because, when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns -- but, in the short term, the Supreme Court has spoken. I respect their decision."

McCain said he expected the reversal to happen, and thinks the lack of political experience on the court affected some justices.

"I was not surprised at the Supreme Court decision," he said. "I went over to observe the oral arguments. It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act)."

He added that justices of the past that supported financing limits, despite their usual conservative positions, had experience in politics and knew the ramifications of their decision.

"I would point out that both Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, who had taken a different position on this issue, both had significant political experience," McCain pointed out. "Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none. But it is what it is."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/mccain-skeptical-supreme-court.html?wprss=44
 
From the Washington Post today: 2009 Democratic agenda severely weakened by Republicans' united opposition

Courting the GOP

The Obama legislative agenda was built around an "advancing tide" theory.

Democrats would start with bills that targeted relatively narrow problems, such as expanding health care for low-income children, reforming Pentagon contracting practices and curbing abuses by credit-card companies. Republicans would see the victories stack up and would want to take credit alongside a popular president. As momentum built, larger bipartisan coalitions would form to tackle more ambitious initiatives.

...

But Republican votes never materialized -- at least not in meaningful form that the White House had in mind. The first hint of GOP obstruction had emerged in January, when Obama made an early trip to Capitol Hill to urge support for his stimulus bill.

Standing at the microphones in the Ohio Clock corridor after the closed-door meeting with House Republicans, Obama expressed hope that his adversaries could "put politics aside" and support the bill.

But even as he spoke, House GOP leaders were urging their rank-and-file to vote against the rescue package. Obama had just departed when House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) issued a statement calling the plan a "wasteful and unfocused package."

The bill received zero Republican votes in the House. Eight months later, by the time bipartisan health-care talks collapsed in September, the GOP outreach effort was effectively dead.

Democrats blamed the breakdown on Republican determination to undermine Obama. "If there's a political strategy not to cooperate, there's not a whole lot that you can do about it," said White House senior adviser David Axelrod.

In short, Team Obama actually thought that Obama's popularity and charisma would be enough to convince Republicans to work with them for the good of the country, as though the previous Congress alone hadn't proven conclusively that the GOP's main goal is to obstruct and destroy the Democratic agenda no matter what. My biggest concern about Obama during the campaign was that he actually believed his own post-partisan rhetoric, and that's sadly been borne out.
 

Diablos

Member
Please. 2009's Democratic agenda was first and foremost severely weakened by Democratic incompetence. That includes Obama. He did try to reach out, but after the first few months he should have maybe come to the realization that the GOP was taking him for granted and totally walking all over the situation.

I hate the GOP, but if Obama had smartened up he wouldn't be in the rut he is right now.
 
In another indicator of Obama's push to pander to middle America and pretty much middle-of-the-road everything, the White House has enlisted Jay Leno to host the annual Correspondents' Dinner this year.
 

Mike M

Nick N
polyh3dron said:
In another indicator of Obama's push to pander to middle America and pretty much middle-of-the-road everything, the White House has enlisted Jay Leno to host the annual Correspondents' Dinner this year.
The White House isn't in charge of the annual correspondant's dinner, as I recall. I doubt the Bush administration would have tapped Colbert to host, for instance.
 
Mike M said:
The White House isn't in charge of the annual correspondant's dinner, as I recall. I doubt the Bush administration would have tapped Colbert to host, for instance.
My mistake then... I had always thought Bush got Colbert to do it because he thought Colbert really was a conservative.
 

Mike M

Nick N
polyh3dron said:
My mistake then... I had always thought Bush got Colbert to do it because he thought Colbert really was a conservative.
Yeah, I was disappointed to learn that wasn't the truth too. Heh heh.
 
51% of the electorate in the 2008 elections said they wanted congress divided along the lines and not have on party strictly in control. The only problem is, who do you blame? Well, the party of NO!
 

NetMapel

Guilty White Male Mods Gave Me This Tag
Republicans have infiltrated Canada :( On a Canadian board I check out every now and then, somebody from Toronto posted this:

as usual, in defense of right thinking/logical ideology, the conservative sees a destitute man and asks why is this man poor, how can he be helped -long term, how can he be given a hand-up.
the liberal prefers to keep the bum on the street with paltry, perpetual hand-outs -cradle to grave. not our idea of 'compassion'. it's really that simple...
you know, "give a man a fish and he will eat for today. teach him to fish..."


in canada, harper does not pander to the 'religious right' mostly because it is practically non existent! radical liberals believe this nonetheless because they must be paranoid or delusional or something -imo.

regarding the republican/conservative swipe, if you really understood the dynamic of american politics (right & left) you might not make such crass statements -and come to understand that they are not one and the same. in fact, the 'fiscal, big business' conservative checker pant republican (like a McCain or Gingrich or Schwarzenegger) and social conservative (no real national level leader as of yet!) are currently infighting ,vying for control of the GOP. (this was perfectly illustrated by the new york 23rd congressional district seat election a couple of months ago where republican state assemblywoman dede scozzafava actually threw her support to the democrat bill owens instead of conservative doug hoffman after she 'bowed out'.)

across the isle, the DNC has been hi-jacked and is currently being run (into the ground) by the extreme left (the neoleft) of their party. that is why old school hacks like Lieberman have been thrown under the bus...

there are religious zealot nuts on the left as well. have you heard of the united church of canada? the anglican church? scientology? madonna's kabbalah sect? even the catholic church is somewhat divided right & left. if you've ever perused the pages of the religious rag "the catholic register" you might not see things so 'black & white'. there is just not the same mainstream media-orchestrated derision and buzzword slandering coming from the other side. but besides, the real religion and high priests of the left (secularists) are well ensconced in 'humanitarian' plight issues like human rights or global warming, aids, animal rights, spreading mild socialism, sexual liberation, legalizing pot...

Curse you, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck ! You're ruining Canada as well now !
 
Canada hasn't remotely been immune from the lurch to the right by the political elite over the last few decades. It's moved well right of where it was several decades ago, although it has retained at least a measure of sanity where the US hasn't.
 
Jason's Ultimatum said:
51% of the electorate in the 2008 elections said they wanted congress divided along the lines and not have on party strictly in control. The only problem is, who do you blame? Well, the party of NO!

I'm not pleased with every decision the White House has made but you can't blame Obama for at least trying to get the GOP on board. Too bad the GOP would rather the house burn down before giving up any political advantage. You had a gun run USA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom