Last night, word leaked that Andrew Romanoff, a 41-year-old who was recently term-limited out of his job as Colorado House Speaker, will be challenging incumbent senator Michael Bennet for the Democratic nomination. Romanoff had been considered a candidate to succeed Ken Salazar as Colorado's Class III Senator when Salazar was appointed in December to head the Interior Department, but governor Bill Ritter went with the lesser-known Bennet, the former Denver Schools Superintendent, instead.
There is, in theory anyway, some room to challenge Bennet from his left. So far this year, Bennet has voted with the liberal position about 88 percent of the time, according to ProgressivePunch.org. But this ranks him just 46th of the 59 Senate Democrats. He has also frustrated many progressive activists with his waffling stance on EFCA, a pro-labor bill that now appears to lack the momentum to pass.
Then again, voting with one's party 88 percent of the time is still voting with one's party 88 percent of the time, and Bennet has been a long way removed from the Evan Bayhs and Ben Nelsons of the world, who have Progressive Punch scores in the 50s or 60s. He also appears poised to support progressives' latest raison d'être, the public option. In addition, Colorado Democrats traditionally take more moderate stances on fiscal policy, but more liberal ones on social policy, the environment, and perhaps foreign policy. So far this year, the Senate has voted almost exclusively on matters of fiscal policy, which might not give someone like Bennet a chance to show off his more liberal stripes.
But in any event, this does not appear to be a primary motivated principally by idological concerns. Rather, in a bit of role reversal, Romanoff is likely to highlight his superior experience as compared with the incumbent, as he has eight years as an elected office-holder to Bennet's zero (Bennet had never run for public office before being picked by Ritter). In particular, he may try to relay his experience working with -- or around -- a vocal Republican minority, as this revealing passage from a 2008 Rocky Mountain News article might suggest:Romanoff said Thursday he feels burned by Republicans who he thought were negotiating in good faith on a plan to untangle conflicting spending mandates in the constitution, including the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.
Bennet has one major advantage over Ronamoff: he's proven to be a terrific fundraiser. In the first six months of the year, Bennet has raised $2.6 million, an impressive total for anyone, let alone someone who had never before held elected office.
Now, Romanoff said, he realizes they were just buying time to galvanize their caucus against the plan.
"I feel like I wasted time in what I thought were genuine policy negotiations that turned out to have been political stalling tactics," he said.
"And I'm embarrassed to admit that, because it makes me look like an idiot. I feel like an idiot, but that's the way it's played out. It's not a game, and it's not over yet."
But, Bennet's approval ratings are marginal, and he has been running neck-and-neck in early polling against several prospective candidates in the somewhat disorganized Republican field. In addition, appointed senators have a poor track record when running for election, particularly if they had not previously held elected office at the time of their appointment.
Overall, this seems like a win-win for Democrats. If Bennet holds on, and that is more likely than not, he'll have gained some experience as a campaigner and may become a stronger general election candidate. If Bennet proves to be too wet behind the ears, the Democrats will have a capable candidate in Romanoff to replace him. And in the meantime, even if the challenge is not explicitly on ideological grounds, Bennet will be under increased pressure to toe the party line, potentially giving the Democrats one less headache on issues like health care and the climate bill.
8.29.2009
Colorado Primary Challenge Looks Like Win-Win for Dems
by Nate Silver @ 3:53 PM...see also 2010, colorado, primary challenges
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

89 comments
snipe
I like the idea of putting up strong liberal challengers against every moderate Democrat. If they won't do what's right on their own, let's force them to.
The message must be sent: Start acting (and voting) like a Democrat or a real Democrat will come in and take your place.
How did that work out for the Republicans, Josh? :) When the far-right said they didn't need the center-right and wanted to push *us* out of the party, why... we found out we at least share "center" with the center-left.
Here's a bit of a spoiler: still a democracy. More people voting for you means you win. Hook or crook to get them, deliberately throwing that away still means you lose.
Sigh. :(
Ricky B,
You can't really compare "far-right" of the Republican party with the "far-left" of the Dems.
The "far-left" are liberal, yes, and support the ideals of their champion, the late Senator Ted Kennedy. They support such "radical" ideas like health care for all Americans. To be fair, the "far-left" should be described as "left of center".
The "far-right", on the other hand, are the neo-cons and their champion is Dick Cheny. They support the real radical ideas like The Bush Doctrine, succeeding from the union, and paying no taxes. They hate the Government, and believe Government is the problem.
So, I don't think the Dems should fear supporting the issues that appeal to the "radicals" in the left of center wing of the party.
And I agree with Josh that any Democratic politician who can't seem to support a public option for health care should be voted out of office the next time around.
Unfortunately, both US Senators from Colorado have been fairly cool on the issue of the public option.
As long as we have an electorate that is easily fooled and that can be gulled into voting directly against their own interests, there is no hope.
I lay this to the decline of education in this country, coupled with years of rule by politicians who actively ridiculed learning and the saturation of the culture with silly manias and fads, such as the slavish interest in the doings of brainless, talentless celebrities that occupies the average young person’s time.
@CO-Liberal
"You can't really compare "far-right" of the Republican party with the "far-left" of the Dems."
They can't be compared? Most glaring are zealots' apparently universal propensity to misrepresent good faith arguments of the other side, delusion that they are near the political center, frequent use of buzzwords, and poor spelling and grammar.
Pragmatus,
It's funny. Many right-wingers express the very same sentiments from time to time.
Maybe politics is like a Moebius Strip?
"...every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end..."
One mans Paris Hilton is another man's Cormac McCarthy.
@CO-Liberal:
While I agree that Cheney is indeed one of the representations of the far-right, I disagree with what you claim some of their policies are.
While it is true that they have made the claim that they hate the government and government is the problem, when they were in control of the White House, Congress and Supreme Court for the six years between 2001 and 2006 they were the biggest supporters of radically increased government power. They said that to oppose government was treason, they ran roughshod over states that did not bend to the federal will (largely with John Ashcroft doing one of the greatest flip-flops in American political history as he absolutely crushed states rights at every opportunity when he was AG), they spent federal money like a New York welfare queen with a stolen credit card...in short they were everything they warned us for decades that the liberals were going to do and they took it to even deeper extremes than the liberals ever dreamed of doing.
The far-right today may be many things but one thing most they definitely are not is conservative. Conservatives, such as Barry Goldwater, work tirelessly to limit the power of government. The Bush Administration not only never did but smacked down any limited-government conservative who dared to raise his head. Today's Republicans give lip-service to conservatism only because they are out of power, but the mask has been torn off. Over the last eight years we have all seen what they really believe by how they acted when they were in power, and how they acted is anything but conservative. It resembled a very different word that starts with "c", one they claimed for decades to oppose.
Win win? Sure. Every party wants its incumbents to spend all their cash on primary challenges, divide the state party, and give their general election candidates all sorts of attack lines. Great idea. If Colorado independents are moving against the Dems as they are elsewhere, the GOP will win this seat with any competent nominee, no matter which of these nobodies wins the Democratic primary. The primary challenge is merely a sign of the incumbents weakness. But the victory of a leftie challenger would not help in Colorado.
@Pragmatas,
While I agree with you 100%, there lies the crust of the problem in the progressive argument. Nobody likes to be called stupid, and nobody likes a know-it-all.
Progressives need to formulate their argument in a non-insulting manner in order to apply the power of persuasion. We must admit the fact that we do not hold 50% of the electorate, and neither do the neocons. The battle is for the middle and that is what Obama is trying to do in a non-effective manner.
Point out the inconsistencies (lies) in the right's arguments, stick to the basic truths and repeat them. Republicans mastered this two decades ago. I think we should start getting a clue.
There is both more and less here than meets the eye.
First, I find it hard to believe that Romanoff would actually primary Bennet. So far, the salacious nature of these rumors seems to be more powerful than the evidence. I question whether this would actually happen, and wonder whether someone is playing a dirty tricks game.
Second, Romanoff has a lot of legislative experience, but Bennet has a lot of executive experience, both in business and as a school district manager. I can complement both individuals on their personal skills and experience, but they have very different resumes.
My personal sense is that Bennet is wicked smart and I would normally think his best role would be as a CEO/Governor/Manager, not as a Senator. Romanoff's legislative experience combined with political ambition would seem to make him a better Senator. But that is about skill sets, not about how either of them would vote.
Third, One might think from their resumes that Bennet is the moderate/business candidate, but he is a relative newcomer (maybe an innocent babe in the woods?) to political tradeoffs. Romanoff might seem to be the liberal/policy wonk, but he has spent a long time on the DLC side of the Democratic Party (as have most long-term Colorado Pols!), collecting political favors and building a resume.
I don't have enough evidence to question either candidate's allegiance to Health Care reform (for example), but I'm not sure we really know which one has stronger ties to the insurance industry nor how they would actually vote. Bennet without a long history of political fundraising might be freer than Romanoff whose entire political career spanned a period of timid Democrats carefully walking the moderate line necessary to win state-wide in Colorado.
Finally, I think such a primary would actually be a good thing and it would benefit the Democrats because it would build excitement and name recognition. If Romanoff is really pursuing his own ambition, even a loss would raise his state-wide name recognition. In such a primary, I would anticipate courteous rather than rancorous debates.
@Pragmatas,
Just to be clear, I don't think we need to devolve ourselves to simple misinformed slogans playing on the basic fears of people. Republicans have made themselves a recipe for disaster as the two past elections cycles have demonstrated.
The truth, the basic truth, repeat. It's simple.
WV: rappint - Rappint, rappint from you hateful ways Republicans! The end is near, rappint!
crust=crux... LOL, maybe I shouldn't post when I am hungry.
When it comes to the current health care reform, I think we'd better "devolve" into simplistic, repeatable terms or we will lose.
Josh said...
I like the idea of putting up strong liberal challengers against every moderate Democrat. If they won't do what's right on their own, let's force them to. The message must be sent: Start acting (and voting) like a Democrat or a real Democrat will come in and take your place.
I absolutely LOVE that idea as a conservative.
Nationally, conservatives outnumber liberals. In the Red states and districts the Dems recently gained to make their majority, conservatives substantially outnumber liberals.
Dems gained their recent majority by running center right campaigns in these Red districts. If the Dems now run primary challenges to the left of these Blue Dog Dems, these azure puppies will have to tack left to fight for the liberal voters than make up a majority of the Dem electorate, but a rather small minority of the overall electorate of these Red districts. The facade of the center right Blue Dog Dem will be dispelled, ceding the center right majority of the electorate back to the GOP.
There is nothing like a self destructive civil war in the opposition party to revive one's political fortunes.
Smitty,
Yes, I think "simplistic" is the key. However, by "devolve" I didn't mean using the same repetitive and easily refutable arguments no matter the consequences. Republicans have limited themselves to a 25% base by using this tactic. It is the tool of the ignorant and fundamentalist.
Simplistic slogans advocating the progressive agenda while refuting the outright false information coming from the extreme right wing is what I meant.
Please, do not begin to think we will loose this debate unless we devolve ourselves to the Republican level. Truth will prevail over lies. Freedom will outshine tyranny. Hope and life will defeat fear and death.
Have faith in the American people. Show them the way and they will choose the right path. Do not put them down because Republicans have traumatized them into submission. This is not our way.
A little perspective, if this was the the 19th century, modern day Republicans would be arguing for slavery, land owner rights, and the gold standard. Who is standing in the way of progress?
BDP,
How much longer will you stand for the untruths and smearing of your kind? Do you not have a conscience?
Americans are dying because INSURANCE COMPANIES have denied Americans adequate access to medical treatment. Americans are dying because the prior REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION sold the American people into an unjust war in Iraq. AMERICANS ARE IN DEBT because of deficit spending due to the misguided notion of "trickle down" economics.
How much more will you sell yourself for? Are you a whore or are you a hoe?
Gen Sherman…
Yep, I agree. I was just expressing truths as I see them. Of course none of this could be said politically, in fact I would strongly discourage anyone from using me as a spokesman or PR operative. As a Medicare recipient, with a comfortable income that will more than take care of me in any eventuality, I have no stake, except a moral one, in the outcome of health insurance reform. Thus I feel little restraint in dispensing opinions without bothering to disguise or decorate them so they don’t look quite so harsh and ugly.
I’m guessing that your ID stems from General W. T. Sherman of the Civil War, one of the historical characters I most admire. He had grievous shortcomings—most atrociously his attitudes towards non-whites—but at his business, which was taking war to the enemy, he was without equal. I rate him higher than Lee, a crack general who also had the extreme good luck to be pitted against the likes of McClellan and Burnside for most of his war career, and to have Stonewall Jackson as a right hand man. When he finally had to face General Meade at Gettysburg Stonewall Jackson was dead, and Lee revealed his limitations. Pickett’s charge on the last day was idiocy, a Hail Mary that had virtually no chance to succeed. No wonder the Union troops jeered the oncoming rebels with cries of Fredericksburg!
Please, BDP, no more talking points. You are making a fool of yourself.
Make this just a matter of principle. How much longer does this country has to go down the drain because of your (and everyone like you) partisan politics? Clinton had a balance budget; Yes, a balance budget for the first time since the 1960's. Explain that you imbecile. Bush was "a compassionate conservative" for education but pushed an unfunded "feel good education" legislation. So much for states rights. Explain that? Where exactly do states rights fit in for Republicans? Only as a matter of convenience?
Stop being a hypocrite. If you insist, maybe you will feel better watching FOX NEWS and listening to Rush. FiveThirtyEight is not your kind of crowd.
Small lies lead to big lies, before you know it, you are entangled in a web of lies. Hence, the current Republican party.
BDP
Keep hope alive, keep hope alive!
As your party is now totally void of leadership or any rational message, keep clinging to the theory of addition by subtraction as the party of No's base keeps shrinking and their main demo, older white folk passes on ...
Can hear the Rep's meme for 2012 even as I type: Pay no attention to the incompetence and corruption of cheney/bush from 2001 to 2009 as that was a figment of your imagination! ie pleeeeease give us a second er third chance.
But heck w/CO, that's a year from now, I'm currently enjoying Christie implode in NJ. Talk about a clueless candidate. If NJ re-elects Corzine, what an embarrassment for the party of No! Yea, Carter was (30) pts. ahead of Ford and Dukakis was (17) pts. ahead of Bush41 and then the campaign began lol.
But BDP, keep hope alive, keep hope alive! as one of these fools: palin, mittens, huckabee, gingrich, sanford, ensign, vitter, perry, jindal, may lead the party of No! back to the promised land!
As Judy Tenuta would say, it could happen ...
keep hope alive!
Ah, Jesus. Pragmatas, a historian after my own heart.
Why can't people realize the importance of history? Yes, it happened yesterday. Then why does it matter if someone hits you over the head with the same stick today?
O/T as most of my posts are ;) but how much is all the Ted Kennedy Love Train coverage :))) driving wingnut trolls like BDP totally crazzzzzy!
Hopefully Limbo, Hannity, Coultergeist, Malkin, Beck, Dobbs, Boortz, Billo, Ingraham, Savage, Larson, Crowley, etc. have very good health care coverage!
Pragmatas,
I took on this ID before the Nov. elections. Little did I know how relevant it would play out today (current debate on health care).
During the civil war, many Northerners believed, even after humiliating defeats to the South, the South would be brought to reason by REASON. To little avail.
Sherman was one of the first who advocated total war. History has proven him right.
There is no middle ground. There is no compromise. However, just like in the civil war, the border states proved crucial to the campaign. This is where we stand today.
We must find a balance. Speak to the truth, but don't let any challenges go unchallenged.
"Nationally, conservatives outnumber liberals. In the Red states and districts the Dems recently gained to make their majority, conservatives substantially outnumber liberals."
Bart,
I hate to break the news to you, but Colorado is not a Red state anymore. The Republicans took a beating here in 2006 and 2008. The Governor is a Democrat. Dems control the State House of Representatives and the State Senate.
There is really no need for Colorado Democrats to flock towards the center. Colorado Republicans, on the other hand, should consider it. Its their only hope in this state that is getting bluer every day.
William Tecumseh, another great Ohio Civil War general.
Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other.
War is hell!
If forced to choose between the penitentiary and the White House for four years, I would say the penitentiary, thank you.
If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.
Yep, I agree. I was just expressing truths as I see them. Of course none of this could be said politically, in fact I would strongly discourage anyone from using me as a spokesman or PR operative. As a Medicare recipient, with a comfortable income that will more than take care of me in any eventuality, I have no stake, except a moral one, in the outcome of health insurance reform. Thus I feel little restraint in dispensing opinions without bothering to disguise or decorate them so they don’t look quite so harsh and ugly.
--------------------
Don't put yourself down. You are the perfect spokesperson for health care reform. You are proof that that government sponsored health care does work. No matter the lies that might ensue.
Use your experiences to prove efficient government is not THE PROBLEM. Efficient government is something we all want. We do not want our tax dollars wasted. What is wrong with that?
We all pay taxes. It is a fact of life. We have no choice in that matter. How it is used is a different story. Do I want my tax dollars to be used to fight an unnecessary war, or instead used to offer health care to uninsured fellow Americans, and in return give me cheaper health care because I am no longer paying for the uninsured?
I am willing to seek a coordinated and focused response to this debate. A thought out strategy is how we will prevail. Talk to me if you are also willing.
Nate you miss the point entirely.
Colorado Dems are from Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins, and the at large Hispanic population.
Colorado Repubs are the 'native settlers'(curiously, the hispanic population of the entire western united states has been here longer than all but native Americans)
They do not vote for each other, they are among the most polarized groups in the country
1st- Romanoff has been with Colorado workers and labor from day one (when dems were in minority)
2nd- Both Ritter and his appointee (Bennet) have taken anti-labor stances
3rd- Bennet has not come out yet in favor of cap and trade. Dem Congressional representatives (except John Salazar) all did, with Betsy Markey from C0-4 coauthoring it.
4. While finally saying he will come out in favor of the public option, this is far from certain. Should he waffle, this primary will come and finish his short career in politics off.
@ furlessgerbil:
Your arguments tell exactly why this is a win-win for Democrats. Bennet knows he needs to go the left to win. Bennet is under pressure to go to the left and if he doesn't do it, Romanoff will take his place. Nate has got it exactly right.
Hey Louis DePalma, go back to dispatching cabs... ok, CO talk- yeah, ummm... I grew up there, yet have been away. So,I'm gonna armchair it. Bennett seems like a smart guy. Romannoff sounds like a Russian czar. Very un-Colorado. I'm kidding.
Watch the "Induct Elway" crowd make some noise.
@F-gerbil: El Paso county is more politically diverse than people think- there's about 250,000 non Republicans, of which I would estimate about 120,000 true Dems/Center-Left/whatever out of 600,000 total. Richard Skorman is a popular community leader/business owner/city council member that, along with the Colorado College neighborhood, KRCC, CS Indy are the heart and soul of some pretty active liberal groups and individuals, many shaken out of complacency since the early 90's (Amendment 2, Focus on The SoCal Nazi Invasion Family). Point being, it's not the GOP/Evangelical monolith people imagine it to be.
CO mountain towns, particularly ski towns like Steamboat, Aspen, Telluride, Crested Butte, are definitely not your rural red state stereotype. Very environmental with very active progressive communities. Not Vail, yet all the valley surrounding Vail is dark purple. Grand Juntion, Glenwood, Delta, Montrose, Eagle, Paonia (the Humboldt of Colorado), Durango (party skier college town), Cortez, Dolores (home of the best brewer in the world): all purple and tending blue these days.
Also unique are southern CO towns with much higher Hispanic heritage, in fact no one ever talks about the Steel City: Pueblo, an old heavily blue labor town. People in CS call it "P-eblo" for some stupid reason, probably borderline racism.
The Dems might even have an in with high plains communities if they get smart to what matters out there- get rid of those goddamn hog farms!! The district that Betsy Markey won stretches from Ft. Collins around to the southeastern corner, ousting a ditsoid right wing ideologue, Marilyn Musgrave- quite a piece of work, that woman- that many Coloradoans are finally wising up to. Even the Denver 'burbs and Greeley are getting more progressive.
Denver just keeps doing mostly good things. G8, DNC, better mass transit... The Nuggets will be back. The Broncs...mmm... give it a few years. Rocks and Avs...who knows. You can never be too far from sports in CO, hey, it's the fittest population in the US. So, maybe a little of that might be injected into this whole complexity of a health care debate. GET OFF YOUR ASSES, PEOPLE! Wait, that might come off sounding like a Republican. A good point may be made out of that in that the GOP does not own that attitude, just like it does not own patriotism. Democrats can do with a little more of that message, yet not the heartless, cranky old fart way of the GOP, and then maybe this Mommy Party/Daddy Party lunacy will be over with.
I'll follow up with one other point: The CO GOP has not come out with any semblance of a electable candidate, since... um... Peter Coors? Name recognition didn't buy him the Senate seat. Bill Owens, now, there's a sleeper, because, as a two term gov, he has some experience, yet he was elected as a social conservative posing as a fiscal conservative (or was it the other way around). Not a bad guy, really, in a Huckabee kind of way, just not much personality. He definitely had to govern from the center. Were he to run the same kind of campaign/platform as in 1998, he would be crushed.
What the hell ever happened to Tim Wirth?!
Great. I've been pushing for Romanoff to primary Bennet since March. This seat was always open, and Michael Bennet should always hae been seen a placeholder for a better Dem, nothing more.
Irrespective of the outcome, I think this is good news for Colorado Democrats. I think these appointed Senators always have a credibility problem within their own party without a primary challenge. You can either gain that by being effective (as Gillibrand seems to be doing in NY??) or by facing down a primary challenge. Either that or a more popular representative for the party comes through the process.
Just out of curiosity, who donated $2.6 million dollars to an appointed senator with eight months experience? Maybe, just maybe, that issue alone would make Romanoff's job easier. Bennett may be new but he's proved to be a pretty capable money whore. Will anyone run as a cleansing influence in 2010? I think it could be a very interesting way to capture the public's imagination after we've seen the results that the blatent buying of our current crop of Congressional representatives had during the Wall Street bailouts and healthcare "reform" debates.
@Jeff and that other conservatroll dipshit...
If it's a right-wing conservative country, how come a majority of it's citizens want out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and 77% support the public option (SurveyUSA)?
Also, how come, even as Dems put a knife to their own throats with progressives and independents, the Republican party as a whole continue to be almost as popular as anal acne?
Not to mention, how is it that The Quitter, the biggest, most popular name in the party, is getting trounced by 30 points to the Marxist Kenyan, who is at the lowest point of his presidency?
Scott Raspublican caught with his pants around his ankles, and his big fat hairy FReeptard ass exposed to the blogosphere:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/27/773158/-Rasmussen-Caught-With-Their-Thumb-On-The-Scale
I've been pointing this shit out since last October.
Interesting comment:
You need to understand Rasmussen's business model
This is from his web site:
As a media company, we make our money by selling advertising, title sponsorships, subscriptions, and content. One thing we don’t sell is polls.
In other words, if Rasmussen can't get someone to pay for access to his polls, or advertise on his web site, he doesn't make any money. Consequently, he has to tailor his polls to produce results that will be marketable. Since Fox News is his biggest customer, guess how he tailors his polls.
I have written about Rasmussen in the past. He actually invents indexes and demographics breaks that no one else would even consider. My favorite was the "Political Class" as opposed to "Mainstream Americans." Take this test yourself:
* Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more - the American people or America’s political leaders?
* Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?
* Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?
Answer two of more of those questions affirmatively and you are a Mainstream American. Answer two or more in the negative and you are a Political Elitist. What could be simpler? Or more simple minded?
CO-Liberal said...
I hate to break the news to you, but Colorado is not a Red state anymore. The Republicans took a beating here in 2006 and 2008. The Governor is a Democrat. Dems control the State House of Representatives and the State Senate.
There is really no need for Colorado Democrats to flock towards the center.
I'm speaking ideology while you are rah rahing for your Dem political team.
You are making the mistake of assuming that Dems and their voters are all liberal and thus the electorates in states that recently went purple or blue have suddenly become liberal. In fact, the country self identifies conservative even more than in the past. Colorado is no exception.
The current Dem majority in CO ran center right - no new taxes and business friendly. Even Gov. Ritter's push for alternative energy did not pitch the greenhouse gas nonsense and instead talked again about more business and economic growth.
The CO electorate is still conservative and routinely votes down tax increases even though government is shrinking due to the recession to the shrieks of the left.
The Dems have to govern center right in order to keep their jobs. Note how Ritter vetoed the pro union legislation meant to intervene in the grocery store labor disputes.
Note how the Dem representatives to Congress are disappearing rather than meet their pissed off constituents over Obamacare.
Note how the two Dem senators who must run state wide are voiding the public option like the plague.
The math here is stark for those Dems who advocate an electoral strategy starting with the ideological base. The pool of conservative voters is at least 50% larger that the pool of liberals. Conservatives and conservative leaning moderates make up majorities everywhere outside of the large cities.
The GOP can afford to run a conservatives and then get a majority by picking off a small number of conservative leaning moderates. Conservatives can afford to alienate the liberal and centrist moderates by running right and win.
However, Dems cannot afford to run left to please their liberal base in Red districts and states because that drives the conservative leaning moderates and an electoral majority away.
For example, when it became apparent that Obamacare was a rigged plan to create single payer health insurance, the conservative leaning Indis bailed on Obama and his favorability ratings tanked to a minority of likely voters in record time.
You and your fellow leftists who post here can go off on me and howl at the moon, but the electoral math does not care.
when it became apparent that Obamacare was a rigged plan to create single payer health insurance,
When did that happen? Disregarding the truth content of this spinned-out claim, every poll I see asking about issues shows most independents have no idea what's been proposed.
Note how the Dem representatives to Congress are disappearing rather than meet their pissed off constituents over Obamacare.
Ah, leftists don't represent regular Democrats but crazy-ass, townhall-crashing LaRouchies are the embodiment of moderate politics.
Regardless, it's worth noting that when you poll for "liberal," the numbers are fairly low, but if you poll for "progressive," the numbers jump up considerably. Polling shows that, for the most part, Americans support progressive policy, and that the conservative plurality is sustained by the fact that many progressives view progressive positions as "moderate."
Amodest proposal for the Colorado commentators on the Left of Center: Adapt a bumpersticker very popular in Oregon a few decades back, "DON'T CALIFORNICATE OREGON!"
Porridgegun,
Afghanastan is the GOP's war? Obama ran on winning it and has sent tens of thousands of troops in. It's his war now. The Palin stuff is getting really old. She's not even a sitting official anymore, is unlikely to run, and is even more unlikely to win the nomination. I know that will disappoint you, as you and your friends seem to want Obama to face a straw opponent rather than a real one. Pathetic.
One more thing: are you a drunk 18 year old? You're rhetorical style is revolting.
Bart: For example, when it became apparent that Obamacare was a rigged plan to create single payer health insurance, the conservative leaning Indis bailed on Obama and his favorability ratings tanked to a minority of likely voters in record time.
Or maybe it has something to do with the astounding number of people willing to believe the misinformation that has been put out there by opponents. 55% think reform means insurance for illegal immigrants. 45% think it will allow government to make end of life decisions for the elderly (read: death panels). http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf Only 37% can identify what a "public option" is (see Nate's 8/27 post).
So if you think that "the public" can see that reform is a stalking horse for single payer, go ahead. But I'd venture that most people don't even know what single payer is.
If you're going to just assume that your own explanation is valid without providing any facts, it's really not worth having a discussion.
By the way, there are plenty of countries that have systems that go far further than the proposed reforms that are not single payer, so even the assumption is false.
Michael: Just out of curiosity, who donated $2.6 million dollars to an appointed senator with eight months experience?
This is just a consequence of how fundraising works. (We've had the same thing in NY with our appointed Senator Gillibrand, who has raised over $3.5 million.)
The party puts a lot of effort into protecting vulnerable members, which is are usually their newest ones. Early money can be used to scare away potential strong challengers, so there's an effort to get as much in the bank as soon as possible. And since it looked until recently that Bennet was going to be the only game in town, it would make sense to send him the bucks for donors who want to hold the seat.
Like NY, I'm sure the party wanted to avoid a money-sapping primary which could open the door for a serious challenger. Unlike NY, CO is a less expensive state to run a a campaign and has a little more time between the primary (Aug. 10) and the general election than New York's primary (Sept. 14) does.
Bart DePalma said...
I'm speaking ideology while you are rah rahing for your Dem political team.
You and your fellow leftists who post here can go off on me and howl at the moon, but the electoral math does not care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ideology indeed BDP, as one is totally in the tank for Reps! like limbaugh and fixednoise as you rah rah daily for the party of No!
Electoral reality is Bush43 squeaked by in 2000 w/help from the SC and squeaked by in 2004 by being an incumbent war time president w/help of gay marriage hate issue initiatives being on the ballot in (8) states and Ken Blackwell's minority disenfranchisement in Ohio.
and 2008 when it wasn't close as a young, relatively inexperienced African/American Dem beat a Rep war hero 365/173 winning VA and IN, the first time for a Dem since 1964 ~ after (8) years of incompetence/corruption by cheney/bush.
This is your electoral reality BDP.
take care
btw BDP, who is currently leading your Rep political team? palin, mittens, jindal, gingrich or huckabee.
Oh and Jeff, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will and always will be 100% cheney/bush wars as they started both, just like the Vietnam war is and always will be a 100% Dem war.
This is also political reality. Obama just needs to catch bin Laden and call it a day!
And interesting there has been no talk since the election by Reps re: the "success" of the surge. You all remember the surge when the U.S. military paid er bribed Iraqi tribal war lords to stop fighting ...
Once "we" leave Iraq, the Sunnis/Shiites will probably revert back to their historical m.o. but hey, it was cheney/bush's historical blunder regardless.
Again, how did the Dems get sooo damn lucky as limbo/palin/steele continue to "lead" their sheep into the abyss!
"In fact, the country self identifies conservative even more than in the past. Colorado is no exception."
Bart, can you refer us to some polling data that confirms this "fact"?
I will use the results of the 2008 election as my evidence to refute your claim. Obama nationally and Mark Udall here in Colorado did not run a right/center campaign. I'll remind you of Joe the Plumber ("Obama's going to redistribute the wealth") and Sara Palin ("Obama's a Socialist").
Your claims may have had some truth in the early to mid-2000s. However, Colorado, as well as the country, is changing. That is what really bums out the town-hall crazies. They "want their America back".
Too late. They had their chance and blew it.
PorridgeGun said: "If it's a right-wing conservative country, how come a majority of it's citizens want out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and 77% support the public option (SurveyUSA)?"
Largely because the concept of costly foreign expeditionary wars only became a conservative concept relatively recently, when the former Southern Democrats were unwisely brought into the GOP by Nixon. Traditional conservatives abhorred foreign military expeditions. Today's so-called "conservatives" embrace them at every opportunity.
Much of the country is indeed "right-wing conservative" but not conservative in the manner that Republican Party leadership is. "Conservative" no longer means "Republican," no matter how many times the GOP-dominated media continues to tell you so. Limited-government conservatives no longer are welcome in today's Republican Party.
Sure Shiloh, noone every associated Richard Nixon with Viet Nam. Sure. He could just blame it on Kennedy.
Obama has clearly associated himself with the war. He has endorsed it and called it a crucial fight. I agree with him. You do not. That's your problem.
@ furrlessgerbill:
I live in Colorado, and I have to expose a flaw in your analysis of Colorado demographics, who votes for what and why. You failed to note that Colorado is bluer today because:
1) The bluing of Denver's inner ring suburbs. Liberals no longer live just in the core cities of Denver and Aurora anymore.
2) Colorado is a high-growth state, attracting the very voters most likely to vote Democratic--upwardly mobile, aged 21-45, college-educated. The same could be said of Virginia, North Carolina, & Florida. Note that almost all of the high-growth states outside the South(and some within the Old Confederacy itself) have lately trended purple or blue.
3) Hispanic voters here, now about 19 percent of Colorado voters, have been largely turned off by anti-Hispanic conservative talk masquerading as "immigration debate". They are not fooled; they understand that much of the chatter just feels like white people who fear brown people(which is a shame, because any real issues here are undermined by raw emotion, just as in the health care debate).
4) Here, as elsewhere, the local GOP essentially went nuts. No, it is not as bad as the Deep South; we are not South Carolina or Mississippi. But they put forward bad candidates and refused to articulate a message that resonated with moderate Republicans. A lot of these moderate conservatives have lately sided with sensible, moderate Democrats.
The GOP can come back here in Colorado, but only if they don't do what the national party has done, among other things, alienate moderates, demonize minorities, follow neocon foreign policy, lionize Sarah Palin, and generally run to the right of all things sane and normal. The pendulum swing both ways, but these times are keeping the weight oriented towards the left.
CO-Liberal said...
BD: "In fact, the country self identifies conservative even more than in the past. Colorado is no exception."
Bart, can you refer us to some polling data that confirms this "fact"?
Gallup polling of Adults:
2009: 40% Conservative v. 21% Liberal.
2008: 37% Conservative v. 22% Liberal.
Gallup also kindly provided this state by state map.
I will use the results of the 2008 election as my evidence to refute your claim.
In the raw 2008 exit polling that heavily skewed Dem, respondents self identified 34% Conservative v. 22% Liberal.
Obama nationally and Mark Udall here in Colorado did not run a right/center campaign.
They sure as hell did.
Obama campaigned on cutting taxes. Neither campaigned on raising taxes.
Obama campaigned on a net spending cut. Neither campaigned on spending increases.
Reagan Lite.
Obama's collapse in approval rating also tracks the fact that most folks have changed their view of Obama from moderate to liberal.
@Bart:
I hate to break it to you but raising taxes hasn't been a campaign theme for a long time (I mean hell the last time the federal government raised a federal taxes was 1994 on gasoline). I mean taxes has never been a liberal or conservative policy however much Republicans like to accuse Dems of raising taxes. The highest tax bracket during the Eisenhower (R) Administration was 92%/91% and during Nixon (R) it was 70%. It wasn't until Reagan that tax cuts were "Republican" and even then Bush Senior raised taxes. To say that Obama campaigning on cutting taxes for the middle class is a Republican position is wrong. The thing with taxes that Democrats do propose is increases in taxes on the highest class which he was for and which is a liberal position.
He didn't really take a conservative angle there...
Jeff said...
Sure Shiloh, noone every associated Richard Nixon with Viet Nam. Sure. He could just blame it on Kennedy.
Obama has clearly associated himself with the war. He has endorsed it and called it a crucial fight. I agree with him. You do not. That's your problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
20,000 U.S. soldiers and 300,000 Vietnamese soldiers and civilians died under Nixon's watch from '69 to '74 and yet, and yet IIRC Nixon won a landslide victory in '72 because the Dems were totally discombobulated like the Reps are now and as mentioned the Vietnam war is/was a 100% Dem war.
Plus no incumbent wartime president has ever lost re-election. Sooo if Afghanistan, A Rep war, is still not ended by Nov 2012 ...
And the Afghanistan war was caused by cheney/bush being caught w/their pants down on 9/11 ignoring intelligence reports hence, therefore, ergo "we" had to go after al Queda/bin Laden in Afghanistan because of initial Rep incompetence.
Btw, the one issue Obama has bi-partisan support w/the party of No! is the Afghanistan war ie the heroic! depleted, over deployed, exhausted U.S. military is doing the best they can after cheney/bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan/Pakistan and the best they can w/cheney/bush's Iraq war blunder!
How many U.S. soldiers dying because of a mistake and how much U.S. treasure wasted because of incompetence. The Rep party used to be the national security party and the experts on foreign affairs. Yea cheney/bush's legacy will live on for the next (30) years just like Carter.
As mentioned, the Rep meme in 2012 will be pleeeeease give us a second er third chance. We're clueless, but not as bad as the other guy.
take care
p.s. my only posit re: Afghanistan is it's a 100% Rep war regardless of what Obama does or doesn't do, but at some time in the future "we" will reach the point of diminishing returns as we did in Vietnam.
History tells us Afghanistan is a lost cause! Most military experts will tell you the only reason to be there is as a buffer to Pakistan, a country w/nuclear weapons.
Russ said...
@Bart: I hate to break it to you but raising taxes hasn't been a campaign theme for a long time.
Ni liberal has honestly campaigned on a tax increase since Reagan crushed Mondale. However, how Dems are going to pay for their promises is generally a campaign issue.
I mean taxes has never been a liberal or conservative policy however much Republicans like to accuse Dems of raising taxes.
Has there been a Dem Administration that has not raised taxes over the past century apart from the Kennedy/Johnson tax cut? I am talking about tax rates, not welfare payments sent through the tax system.
To say that Obama campaigning on cutting taxes for the middle class is a Republican position is wrong.
Agreed. The GOP cuts everyone's taxes.
Bart DePalma said...
Agreed. The GOP cuts everyone's taxes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush41 ~ Read my lips, no new taxes! and then he signs a bill increasing everyone's taxes. Oops!
Bart, you really are emulating stuffy ol' Brit Hume in the "this country is center-right" meme. Wishful thinking on your part, dude.
Clearly, the prospect of change in health care is highly emotional and disturbs many people.
But here's my question: Since when is it conservative to embrace new, overpriced, corrupt systems, like the health-destroying and ruinously expensive protocols of much of modern medicine? "Conservative" has several meanings, but two central ones are "favoring traditional views and values," and "avoiding excess."
I hold that nothing could be more wild, unconstrained, and downright liberal than the path medicine has taken in just the last 20 years -- an unprecedented bacchanalia of excess and contempt for traditional American values.
Again, what is it "conservatives" are trying to "conserve"?
Oh, yeah, that's right, framing the debate and manipulating the 24-hour news cycle, that's what you seem to be trying to conserve. Short term profit over long term benefit is another... let see... less government but more corporate power that answers to nobody... less government but legislate morality... less government but not for pork barrel weapons and secret torture programs that don't work... prisons, wars, them or us Cold War mentality... that's what you seem to be trying to conserve.
The Religious Left,
A few things I can think of, by no means exhaustive, that conservatives are trying to "conserve":
1) a vigorous, responsive, job-producing private sector
2) school choice
3) health care choice
4) money in people's pockets
5) private property rights
6) life and dignity of the unborn
7) military superiority over our enemies of those nations wishing to do us harm
Just a few things conservatives are trying like the dickens to conserve...
Yeah, Walker, you ought to read a little Dickens. The books about the squalid life of the early industrial revolution and income disparity.
IF you are for health care choice, why is the public option so odious, as it will offer another more accessible CHOICE. Insurance companies already ration care. Insurance companies acknowledge that they ration care, restricting coverage of procedures and tests like MRIs and CAT scans and denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions.
If you are for LIFE and the dignity of the unborn, why are you FOR the death penalty, torture, and why do "conservatives" fear supporting mothers (EVERY mother is a WORKING mother) so that women are not faced with such a terrible CHOICE as an abortion. NO ONE is FOR abortion. It's a terrible CHOICE to face, yet why do you think it's the government's job to control that choice while you seem to think it has no role in things like EDUCATION or HEALTH CARE which might lead to FEWER ABORTIONS?!
Did I miss something, or have I just not been believing the lies about "apology tours" and wanting our enemies to win... more lies and bullshit in the guise of a GOP meme. Do you think for a second that any American wants nations wishing to do us harm to have military superiority over us? Like it would ever happen anyway... but we always need an enemy because that makes us feel so important and diplomacy is for sissies...
Most of the super rich, the ones that ought to be paying a more fair and just share of taxes, you know, the ones you "conservatives" are mesmerized by even though supporting them goes against your own best interest, those guys- those are the ONLY section of the population that ANYONE has talked about raising taxes on. Go ahead, keep on being their lap dogs. You do it so well.
School choice? What the fuck is that? You HAVE school choice. Send you kid to a private school if you CAN AFFORD IT. Others in lower income strata don't have that choice, so far be it from anyone with half a brain to want to SUPPORT THE SCHOOLS. Oh, but that would be just another Liberal Tax & Spend deal. Let's just say we want vouchers so we can pat ourselves on the back for being "inclusive".
Oh, BushCO was real effective in creating that vigorous, responsive, job-producing sector... for contractors raping the public chest in Iraq and for multi billion dollar Oil and Pharma companies, oh, dear, and the INSURANCE industry. The rest of us, ah, we'll just live in the service sector shithole that Reagan gave us while everything else is outsourced to slave labor in East Timor.
Private property rights? Tell that to NATIVE AMERICANS. How about PUBLIC PROPERTY RIGHTS? How is that oil and mining companies rape and pillage our resources with zero accountability and close to zero royalty going into the public coffers that would be a way of offsetting income tax? Wha...I don't want to pay any taxes and the megabillion dollar corporations I worship shouldn't have to either. Bunch of shit-diapered babies, really, how do you suppose that a society is to function? You think that corporate self interest will provide everything for the public good?
Nate - a numbers request -
picking up on something Yglesias posted (25 Dem Senators rep over 50% of the US population)
What percentage of the US population is represented by the total Dem Senate caucus?
Bart De Barmy…
You’re positions are getting pretty laughable. Reagan was responsible, in 1982 and 1983, for the biggest tax increases in US history. Here’s the skinny, and you can easily verify the information in any record of Reagan’s time in office.
Republicans have absolutely no ethics whatever. Their “conservative principles” are now restricted to social issues. When money is involved (public money, that is) they dive right in and parcel it out to their pals.
Walker…
You list is a little dreamy-eyed. The GOP was violently opposed to any stimulus, and if they had been in charge this spring the economy now would be destroyed. Don’t take my word—you can ask your pal Alan Greenspan, he of the “I had no idea” mea culpa before Congress, who has said that the stimulus should have been even greater.
As for health care choice, you mean “health care choice dictated by insurance industry bureaucrats”. That’s not choice, but you’ve proven remarkably resistant to truth on this topic, so further argument will be of little use.
Life and dignity of the unborn—how many unwanted babies have you adopted, particularly inner city babies born of crack mothers and the like? Republicans have the worst record in term of adoption, yet they always yell the loudest about abortion. Barney Frank said it most succinctly—“The GOP’s concern about the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.”
...and just some of the things conservatives are not trying to "conserve":
1) failed, bloated local public school monopolies dominated by Luddite, hyper status quo teachers unions
2) "too big to fail" state-owned car companies currently currently being pummeled by foreign car manufacturers, made worse by idiotic schemes like Cash for Clunkers
3) an endlessly corrupt, entrenched, and arrogant political class; both Democrat and Republican career politicians who think they live above the rule of law
4) endless, massive, crippling public debt as far as the eye can see driven by chronic over-spending (by both parties)
5) gov't sanctioned race-based preferences and set-asides that are completely unconstitutional and un-American on their face
Chirp away with the Fox talking points, Walker, chirp away.
Yeah, the elite politicians, an easy scape goat for any form of populism. You mean like Cheney, who had "other priorities" during Vietnam while PATRIOT KERRY served, and the whole OVP Secret Government thing? Frat Boy W? How about the whole GOP attitude of being entitled to control and dominance in DC? Elite politicians like Ted Kennedy who were actually devoting their lives to the betterment of all? How about elite right wing media fucktards like RushBo? Do they count, since he really is the de facto leader of the GOP?
I know Reagan did quite a job in the hypnotize-the-middle and working-class thing, but, man, you really are asleep.
"how many unwanted babies have you adopted"?
You don't know me very well.
You are right, though. People of good-will on all sides should look at adoption as a means to provide good homes for unwanted children and help promote the social good. People should put their money where their mouths are.
In Harris County alone there are 50K plus children in the protective services or foster care network.
Galatians 4, in the Bible, makes a shocking claim that underlies the beauty of adoption:
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
God sent His Son to adopt His Children.
As a result, we are not slaves under the law, but literal co-heirs of the entire world through Christ.
The above passage might be the most truly shocking thing ever put to paper.
Legit.
Yeah, slavery and manifest destiny were race based preferences too. Segregation was a race based preference that really worked wasn't it. Takes a little while to clean up that shit. Go figure.
Massive crippling debt caused by a WAR BEGAN with LIES AND DECEIPT of the American public? How much is KBR/Halliburton milking the US for while we amass that debt?
So let me get this straight, you want to ADD to those numbers by forcing young women to carry through unwanted pregnancies?
I think basic human rights should extend to the unborn, if that is what you are asking.
Who would Jesus insure? Who would Jesus bomb?
Would Jesus be in favor of School Choice? Would Jesus vilify poor immigrants from Central America and Mexico while catering to white people's latent fear of the other?
Would Jesus say bombing and maiming Iraqi civilians is supportive of life and a good first option over diplomacy and sanctions? Would Jesus, were he on the NSC, advocate destabilizing a region and allowing an adversary like Iran unprecedented influence while we go broke doing so and blame mothers in poverty for the debt?
Would Jesus support Blackwater and "enhanced interrogation"? Would Jesus really like Dick Cheney? Would Jesus appreciate the "Christian" Right's co-opting of his name and his message, so hypocirites like Newt Gingrich can feel ok about dumping his wife while she's in a hospital or Sarah Palin MAKING STUFF UP about Death Panels?
Would Jesus support the "pick-yourselves-up-by-your-bootstraps" meme that, again, hypnotized the middle and working classes since Reagan, basically neutering any chance of effective and sane government in this country?
All the lies and bullshit spewed out by conservatives... it makes you want to puke. "Christian", HA!
Bart De Barmy…
Also, perhaps you can enlighten us about how you plan to cover any medical emergencies with your Health Savings Account. You stated here that you rely on that alone for coverage, which is frankly silly because they only work in conjunction with health insurance. (Hint: with a HSA alone you pay full freight at hospitals etc., an HSA in conjunction with insurance gives you access to the insurer’s contract rates.)
So I hate to drag you out of your talking points bubble, but if you can answer that question we might have a glimmer of understanding of how your mind works. Or fails to, as the case may be.
Walker…
Same thing with you. You have consistently ducked the question of what kind of insurance you have, but since you have indicated you are of fairly advanced age I suspect you are covered by Medicare. Do you have Medicare or Medicare Advantage, and if neither, how are you covered?
I know you will be tempted to throw out another Bible verse, but that won't really answer the question, will it? Just like you didn't tell us how many unwanted babies you have adopted.
The simple truth is that Jesus would probably be completely unpolitical. He wouldn't be a Democrat, he wouldn't be a Republican, neither conservative nor liberal in any commonly understood sense. He was not what the masses or elites were expecting, that's for sure, some kind of heroic warrior-priest-king.
He was definitely "radical", though, and had specific, visceral righteous anger towards to the religious and political elites of the day. As a result, they hated him, Gentile and Jew.
No one should attempt to co-op the message of Christ for base, political purposes. It's vulgar and self-serving, to say the least. Republicans do it. So so Democrats.
Jesus ultimately spoke to the individual, to the individual heart. He was very personal and cared deeply for the common man.
He spoke a lot about serving widows and orphans, that's for sure.
He was not a political agitator and interestingly commanded his followers to honor and even support existing Roman rule.
It's very hard to put Jesus in a box.
Pragmatus said...
Bart De Barmy…
You’re positions are getting pretty laughable. Reagan was responsible, in 1982 and 1983, for the biggest tax increases in US history. Here's the skinny, and you can easily verify the information in any record of Reagan’s time in office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pragmatus, knew about the several times Reagan raised taxes also, but was too lazy to look up the info.
Plus didn't want to break BDP's heart lol knowing Reagan is his hero! as when one easily destroys Reagan's political legacy one also destroys the entire conservative philosophy if there is such an animal.
Reagan got a pass because he followed Carter, was shot just after his inauguration and voters felt sorry for him and the Dems were totally discombobulated as the Reps are now. He was a likable grandfatherly figure.
To be fair historians currently rank him #10 and I'll go along w/that ranking although not hard to look good when one follows Carter.
Pragmatus,
To answer your questions:
My family of six is covered through Aatna.
I pay the premiums.
We are indeed in the process of adopting from Ethiopia.
My wife is also adopted, by the way, the accidental result of two horny high-school kids in East Texas back in the early 70's.
She, and I, are very grateful to her birth-mother for putting her up for adoption through a private, Episcopal agency here in Houston. She was eventually adopted into a loving home. Interestingly, she was given the name "Melissa Jo" because her new mother wasn't sure she was going to be a prissy, girly thing 'Melissa' or a tomboy 'Jo'. She wanted to cover both bases.
Also Pragmatus, I am not really of "advanced age". I am 35, 36 next month.
I guess the searing gravitas inherent in my prose ages me. I must work to be more juvenile.
Pragmatus said...
Bart De Barmy…
Also, perhaps you can enlighten us about how you plan to cover any medical emergencies with your Health Savings Account. You stated here that you rely on that alone for coverage
BDP said he served (7) years in the U.S. Army, so if this is true, he always has the VA to fall back on or maybe his wife has separate coverage or maybe he's just totally full of shit! lol
btw BDP, one still hasn't updated your resumé w/specific dates of military service ...
Walker…
Ah, good. So Aetna is your insurance carrier.
Are you happy with the way premiums keep going up and up? Most people, when faced with this yearly escalation, make one of the following decisions—
♦ Accept a larger deductible.
♦ Accept larger co-pays.
♦ Change to a less expensive HMO, which means limiting your choice of doctors, who now will be located further away; longer waits, fewer in-network services (i.e. MRIs are covered only as out-of-network).
♦ Decide to dispense with most preventive care.
Have you been forced to do any of these things? Or have you just accepted premium increases stoically? Surely you don’t think these are ever going to decrease?
Speaking of premiums, you are aware that your premium dollars pay, in addition to health care costs—
♦ Enormous overhead waste in the industry, $300 billion dollars yearly and counting. That’s almost $1,200 per insured person in the United States. So $1,200 of what you pay to Aetna yearly is just plain pissed away—think of what you could do for your family, or even charity, with that $1,200.
♦ The jillion dollar salaries of the executives of Aetna.
♦ The billions that Aetna pays out in dividends to shareholders. Yep, that cash comes from one source only—the pockets of premium payers. Your pocket.
Yet you have indicated diametric opposition to reform of health insurance.
Are you an idiot? (Sorry—I can come to no other conclusion.)
Walker…
Another thing, but it’s important—if your insurance carrier is Aetna, how come you can’t even spell their name? Surely you have to know if you write checks to them.
Your story is beginning to self-destruct…
Walker…
Last question—since you are so actively anti-abortion, why are you adopting from Ethiopia when the need for adoptive parents is so acute here, especially since you work so hard to encourage women in America to bear their unwanted children?
Pragmatus, some people have accused me of being an idiot.
I guess it is possible I'm an idiot.
I've read Proust (not in the original language) and enjoyed it. Likewise, I've read Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian (also not in the original language) and enjoyed that too.
On the flip side, I love AC/DC and football and comic books.
I think the smartest person in politics is Newt Gingrich, bar none. Does that make me an idiot?
Maybe...
Walker…
Refusing to answer questions makes you even more of an idiot.
Walker…
I see you have decided to flit away rather than answer some questions about your philosophy, which suggests you really don’t have a philosophy, or else it is so inane as to be indefensible.
Newt Gingrich was pretty sharp about some things, but he let Bill Clinton get the better of him in the great GOP Attempt to Shut Down the Government. He came out of that looking like a monkey. Also, how long did Gingrich’s great “Revolution” last? He was Speaker of the House for less than four years, and then his own party turned on him so viciously he had no hope of even holding his seat, and had to give that up too.
Further, few people in American politics have ever had such high negative numbers, even when the “Revolution” was in full swing. If you admire Gingrich for his political acumen, I can scarcely see how. Politics involves getting people on your side. How good was he at doing that? Every run he has made at the presidency had to be scrapped because he couldn’t raise enough in contributions even to make it through the primaries.
So with your slavish admiration for the health insurance status quo, which is robbing you of thousands of dollars yearly, it is no wonder that Newt Gingrich would be a hero of yours. If you’re going to poke out one of your eyes, why not poke out the other too?
@Pragmatus:
Don't pose other questions to distract Walker (he seems to have enough trouble answering qustions at the moment)...leave him with the questions asked before. The deafening silence from him was in itself the perfect argument.
I think the smartest person in politics is Newt Gingrich, bar none.
This Newt who was for cap-and-trade, and is now against it? http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_04/017936.php And was for end-of-life counseling, and is now against it? (He also shamelessly brings up the "euthanasia" canard regarding health care reform.) http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/12/newt-gingrich-changes-whats-left-of-his-mind-on-end-of-life-care/
He's always been interesting. He had the occasional good idea a decade or two ago. He may be smart. But I don't think he's right very often, and I'm hard pressed to find a good idea he's had recently.
Nice false choice on the ObamaCare scenario, guys. Very Obama-esque.
Trust us! Trust Obama!
Trust in immense minds behind the Stimulus Package and Cash for Clunkers!! Trust us and all your health care concerns will disappear like fine, gossamer threads caught in a dragon's breath.
(my simile. you guys like?)!!
Please. I just don't trust these guys like you do.
Regarding Newt G., in my opinion there is no other national political figure with as subtle as grasp on history and the power of ideas than the former Speaker.
The guy is brilliant as a speaker too.
He recorded a "This I Believe" segment years ago for PBS - from scratch, one take - that was unreal is is eloquence and power.
It's worth looking up.
@ Walker:
Well, good for you, and I really mean that, that you are adopting. But all mothers who have conceived a child in less-than-ideal conditions don't always have the option of sending that child to America.
The abortion issue, as I see it, is one of oppression, in that any society that successfully manages to ban them completely pretty much destroys the life of its young women. Just google the recent history of Romania in the decades before 1989 and you will see what I am talking about. Orphanages full past capacity with lonely, unloved children, driven crazy due to lack of received affection. At that time, the dictator Ceaucescu had ordered a complete ban on all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, and that was the result.
Seriously, Walker, I can tell you right now that no woman in your life that you love, nor any other woman on Earth, should ever have to live in such a society, because any such culture that comletely bans abortions must also have a control over the daily life and actions of its married and unmarried females so that all conceptions MUST ALWAYS come to term. Welcome to Saudi Arabia. Welcome to rural Afghanistan. Welcome to Romania, 1965-89....and America, before 1973. Places like that enforced an unfair moral code on its females only, because they are the gender that brings babies into this world.....and because men had the power to do it, and because females bought into their own gender inequality.
In a crazy Orwellian twist, in all these places, protection is confused with control, and socially established women grow to hate the ones who are not.
When you kiss your female loved ones good-night, just be thankful that none of them ever has to live in such a place or time, because even you would not tolerate the horrible measures that must be employed to end all abortions.
Walker said...
Trust us! Trust Obama!
Please. I just don't trust these guys like you do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Walker, there's the rub for Reps ie cheney/bush had (8) years and they screwed the pooch every which way to Sunday.
another opportunity for my Paul Begala quote: at the end of (4) years, if he's a miserable failure like Bush, we'll re-elect him anyway! ie Reps have a proven er infamous track record from 2001 to 2009.
as I said, Reps meme for 2012: we're clueless, but not as bad as the other party, honest you can trust us ;) pay no attention to the last (8) years, pay no attention to the wizard behind the curtain lol don't be deceived by your eyes and ears and once again follow Alice as she enters wonderland.
'nuf said!
@ Walker:
Like I have said to Missy and PeteKent, I hope none of you gets sick anytime soon. This whole health care reform is about making the insurance companies behave, and not ordering you to pay-or-die, which is what they do now. No one is safe, there are no special deals cut for you within the conservative coalition (unless you have McCain or Kennedy money). Although the vast majority of Americans have insurance, the real test comes when you actually have to use it.
Wake up. If trust in government is sometimes our weakness, your blind faith in the free market is yours.
The so-called free market brought us to this present crisis, where primary care is a for-profit endeavor.
What it really means is that if you are a healthy 22-year-old, for example, an insurance company sees you as a cash cow for a few decades until you get a disease. If you are already in a high-risk group, then you are out of luck.
Since you have informed us that you are a healthy person in his mid-thirties, may you live long and prosper...because the minute that wonderful insurance company you love has to eventually cover your medical care, you will see where you really stand with them. Let's hope that you never have to find out anytime soon.
@Pragmatus - I currently live in the district whose representative led the failed "palace coup" against Newt Gingrich (now NY-26). Then it was Bill Paxon's district. It later became the district of Tom Reynolds and is currently represented by Chris Lee. Then, upstate New York was dominated by limited-government "Goldwater" conservatives such as Amo Houghton and Jack Quinn and the big-government totalitarianism of the Religious Right, led by people such as Gingrich, rankled them. This is one of the reasons Paxon led the coup. The Christian "conservatives" won and their retribution against Republicans upstate was fierce. Within four years of the coup, all the limited-government conservatives were either gone or turned, replaced by those whose votes and ideologies were more in line with the Deep South, people like Tom Reynolds and Randy Kuhl...but upstate voters fought back. Now what used to be a bastion of the Republican Party has been reduced to two seats. Districts that were expressly gerrymandered to be safe GOP districts (like Amo Houghton's former NY-29) have been lost to the Dems.
Newt Gingrich's legacy is largely responsible for turning blue what used to be one of the GOP's greatest strongholds. Gingrich's incompetence handed Upstate New York to the Dems and the current GOP is not doing a damn thing to get it back. If that's the sign of one of the GOP's smart politicians, one can only imagine what their stupid ones are doing.
Lord Calvert...
Their stupid politicians are collecting retirement checks in Wyoming and Texas.
Still waiting for Walker to respond to the questions I posed to him. Maybe I'll have to go through Missy the nap-taker, who seems, from his statements here, to have Walker on a short leash.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
электронная почта без регистрации
Post a Comment