No matter how you slice and dice them, Barack Obama's poll numbers are down. And it's clear that his health care reform advocacy is contributing to his sagging support. So, herewith, a question for the day: As summer draws to a close, what can we say about Obama's use of his political capital?
As I see it, there are (at least) four possible explanations we can kick around:
1. Obama came to Washington to spend capital, not hoard it--and that's exactly what he's doing. This argument is equivalent to saying Obama is the Democratic George W. Bush, in that he cares less about his numbers and being loved than he does about pushing through his agenda. (Bush famously said upon winning re-election that he had earned some capital in the first election, earned a little more during re-election, and intended to spend it.) Big change is costly, and not just in actual dollars from the Treasury, but in terms of how much of his capital reserves a president is willing to spend to get what he wants. Obama is not plugging for school uniforms, folks. He's re-regulating Wall Street, trying to stimulate the economy by pumping nearly $1 trillion into it, and attempting to tackle the policy problem too many of his predecessors never could: reforming our messy, complicated health care system. Accordingly, he's paying the price for even trying.
2. Obama is investing now with an eye toward medium- and long-range returns. Call this the "you've got to spend political capital to make political capital" theory, in which Obama knows that the first summer is a good time to make a big investment, with sufficient time to recover his losses and maybe even come out ahead by the 2010 midterms, or at least by the time his own 2012 re-election campaign rolls around. If you have to do health care at some point in the first term, it's now or never...and so, after taking an initial hit, his capital reserves will slowly rise back to pre-Summer '09 levels.
3. Obama miscalculated. Riding an initial wave of popularity, the president figured he would be able to push through health care reform at little or no cost to his approval ratings, but miscalculated miserably. That is, he presumed that the relatively blank check given to him for the stimulus and other agenda items was somehow transferable to health care. And now, like a man committed to the wrong investment portfolio, he is chasing bad money with good and doesn't have the sense to just bail.
4. Obama got mugged. Even smart investors and people with eyes in the back of their heads sometimes get rolled, and Obama is simply the victim of a coordinated series of attacks designed to snatch his political wallet. Americans for Prosperity, Glenn Beck and company knew what they were doing.
OK, let's do some accounting. Obviously, the first two are the more charitable explanations than the latter two, for even though there can be some blame-shifting for explanation #4, a president still ought to be prepared for attacks of every sort. Frankly, as I consider all four, I'm not sure any of them is alone sufficient to explain what's going on. There might be a little of each.
The president surely believes in health care reform, and is willing to risk some capital to get it. But of course, he also would risk capital by not doing anything; critics, especially within his own party and from his base, would say he talked the talked during last year's primary and then balked the balked once in office. The second view is simply too charitable, because it presumes confidence that some of the independents currently abandoning him are going to return; and without them, he could be in serious trouble. And yet, if forced to move on reform at some point, the period immediately after the first six months' emergency actions provides the longest recovery period.
There's surely been some miscalculation, however. Health care reform isn't the stimulus package. For one thing, the stimulus is a temporary booster, whereas reform will ramify for decades. Moreover, although the effects of the $787 billion will hardly affect every American the same way, there's no doubt the un- and under-insured stand to benefit more--and even the slightest whiff of redistribution makes a lot of Americans queasy. Finally, well yes, there has been something of a political mugging. Need I review everything that's transpired on television and in town halls since the Sen. DeMint fired the starter's gun with his "Waterloo" comment? Thought not.
Whatever combination of the above four, Obama now faces the toughest political challenge of his presidency thus far.
8.18.2009
Is Obama Spending his Political Capital, Wasting It ... or Wuz He Robbed?
by Tom Schaller @ 8:57 AM...see also health care, obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

177 comments
The White House has been hedging on the public option pretty much since the debate began, and with good reason. As Seblius stated, the intended effect of the public option is to put downward pressure on pricing. A non profit co-op would have the same effect, if it were structured to be large enough. Are we really asking insurance companies to operate at less than zero profit? If so then it would kill private insurance.
If you look at the individual datapoints on the graph (place the pointer over them) then you will see that the more reputable polls are giving Obama better numbers and the less reliable ones give worse results for Obama.
Obama needs to stick with a public option or else. As Howard Dean explains it, the senate can take it out, vote on their bill and when they go to reconciliation they slip it back in and only need 50 votes to pass a final bill.
This could very well be what will happen, Obama plays compromise and in the end gets what he wants.
I have no idea if this would help or hurt his popularity but it would show some spine.
Also take out the BS Rasmussen poll Obama would probably ad another point to approval. Explain to me how a likely voter profile is fair when doing presidentail approval, it should be what gallup does all people. This is just a ploy Rasmussen put in to lower Obama's approval.
This is the same up-down "poll dance" every politician goes through, isn't it? Why the angst? Aren't Democrats more thick-skinned than this? Is it because of Clinton, and how badly he got trashed in '94 and during the impeachment? Obama isn't Clinton.
I think that Obama knows what he's doing. If us on the left had been out on day one of the health care debate, campaigning for a public option, it would happen. We didn't, so we gotta live with what we got. Obama is going to soldier through this fight, and turn around for another one later.
In the meantime, maybe progressives can take the lesson of this fight to heart, and start pushing for a progressive climate change bill NOW.
I agree with Joel in that the path he describes is probably the best way to get this passed. In the meantime though his numbers will continue to dip, we are in the middle of a recession after all and one side of the political spectrum has been frothing at the mouth to call this administration a failure since its inception regardless of what its goals or actual results are.
As to the original post, I think it is mostly a combination of 2 and 3, Obama planned to spend now and get the biggest pledges passed (stimulus and HCR) and see returns at the midterms and in 2012 (via the stimulus and HCR respectively). The economy will be nudging back in the right direction come November 2010, helping boost the now flagging popularity of the party in power. In 2012 we should be seeing some real juice back in the economy, and people will be able to assess whether or not the administration has delivered on its promises (I expect that it will have) at which point Obama can point to past accomplishments and tromp all over any opposition (please be Palin). However, it has cost him dearer than he thought and is a harder battle than he imagined. If he is victorious, I think he will be, then we will see a continued sidelining of the party already in the minority.
Actually Rasmussen has over the course of the time tracked on the graph had more effect raising Obama's average disapproval than lowering his approval. Some of the earlier polls that led to the greatest decrease in approval (and increase in disapproval) are internet polls that in my opinion should not be included due to the inherent sampling problems involved.
"Are we really asking insurance companies to operate at less than zero profit? If so then it would kill private insurance."
Private insurance companies do well selling health insurance in countries with single-payer systems (for that matter, they also sell health insurance to Americans on Medicare). Why exactly should we expect that the entire health insurance industry will crumble to dust if a "public option" half-measure is put into place?
Obama's support is flagging because he is perceived to be advocating for programs that are portrayed by the Right as being hand-outs to the despised minorities--blacks, browns, immigrants, etc.
His support was wide (more or less) but shallow...the 'hopey/changey' constituency has grown skeptical. He won by a relatively narrow margin against the most lack-luster opposition imagineable, in a race it's obvious to me the Pukes threw (they didn't even TRY to steal it).
The Pukes can ONLY regain their Congressional majority--or diminish the Dims'--by making certain that nothing meaningful gets enacted into law.
Duh...
IMO, so far, Obama's been wasting his political capital on traditionally Republican policy: Bank bailouts without sufficient oversight, more troops in Afghanistan, protecting justice department officials from the previous regime and CIA torturers, and that ridiculous brief that pissed off the gays and had a lot of people disillusioned.
Basically, in the last 100+ days, Obama has allowed himself to get dragged into the mud with Cheney, kooks on the far-right RepubliKKKan fringe (aka majority of the party), and corrupt Blue Dogs on healthcare. And for that, Axelrod and Emanuel should be ashamed of themselves. I think it's safe to say, Obama hasn't gone to the mat for progressives and independents, you know, the people who actually voted for him, on anything so far.
I said this months ago, even when Obama was at 68% in almost every poll, with the obvious exception of Raspublican, who had him at 56%. The way I see it, Obama is making the same mistakes Tony Blair did as British PM. Both swept into power with a clear mandate for change, huge majorities, and enormous goodwill from the public, not to mention a conservative party that had smashed itself through corruption and incompetence. Like Blair, Obama is stalling on too many progressive issues, he's been far too cautious on domestic policy. Bush dictated like he had an 80 seat majority and rammed through his agenda. The fucker didn't even win the 2000 election. The sooner Obama starts governing like a president who won by the biggest margin in 20 years, the better.
Gallup:
At the same time that more Americans say the economy is getting better, the percentage who name an economic issue as the most important problem facing the country is down to 60% from 69% a month ago. Meantime, the healthcare debate is turning more attention to that issue, with 25% now calling it the country's most important problem -- up from 16% a month ago.
It might help to recall of what political capital consists. Political capital is simply the electorate's support of a candidate to do what he was elected to do. It is not a blank check for the candidate to do whatever he wants.
Reagan campaigned on tax cuts, deregulation and smaller government and he spent his political capital doing what he was elected to do. He succeeded famously.
George II was reelected to win the war on terror. Instead, he tried to enact a SS reform that a majority of folks opposed. He failed miserably.
Obama campaigned on lower taxes, a net spending cut and generic heath care reform with no mention of single payer. In stark contrast, Obamacare will require substantial tax increases, nearly a trillion dollars spending that is not offset by other cuts and a back doored single payer system that a majority of the electorate opposes. He is failing miserably.
Speaking of lost political capital, CBS News reports
CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP memberships since July 1, angered over the group's position on health care.
Elaine Guardiani has been with AARP for 14 years, and said, "I'm extremely disappointed in AARP."
Retired nurse Dale Anderson has 12 years with AARP and said, "I don't wanna be connected with AARP."
Many are switching to the American Seniors Association, a group that calls itself the conservative alternative as CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.
Last week alone, they added more than 5,000 new members. Our camera was there Friday when the mail came.
Letters were filled with cut-up AARP cards.
AARP is not going to risk its membership to endorse Obamacare.
I don't think criticism of Obama is entirely fair. I think he is playing a canny game in some ways.
It is interesting when you look at the disapproval line, the only red dots above the line recently have come from Rasmussen. They are obvious outliers and having a very bad affect at skewing the line from where perhaps it ought to be to better reflect Obama's standing.
But I think the reason that the line is sagging is that people are awaiting results. The stimulus's effects are begining to filter out, but a political victory is needed for Obama, and the Democratic Party more widely. Thats were the health care bill comes in so important, preferably with a public option. I think partly that some of the flagging support is eecking away from the left, people who had there hopes up, have been patiently awaiting change, and haven't seen tooo much of it yet.
I would suggest that part of the ebbing support in fact, is that Obama has been slow to spend political capital. Bill Clinton blew his very very quickly, over gays in the military and then muffing health care reform badly. Obama has been holding onto his political capital in order to bank it in on health care reform, one assumes. The real anger from the left will be launched if health care passes without a public option. If a health bill with a decent public option is passed, Obama will be buying himself a lot of loyalty from the left.
Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...
He won by a relatively narrow margin against the most lack-luster opposition imagineable, in a race it's obvious to me the Pukes threw (they didn't even TRY to steal it).
You mean The Quitter from Alaska? The conservative nutbase, particularly FReeptards, insist McCain was irrelevant, they were voting for her, she was the most formidable electoral threat since Ronnie Raygun. Now with 39% favorability (identical to Dan Quayle after left office and was conisidering a presidential run), yet she's still considered the biggest name in the party.
This is almost unthinkable and I don't really want to believe it, but part of me thinks the Obama White House knows that even if they continue to govern as middle of the road centrists, the base will still turn out and moderates will vote for their guy in 2012 if The Quitter is somehow the RepubliKKKan nominee. Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe even said she was the Obama campaign's biggest fundraiser. Whenever she opened her mouth, it was like printing money.
BTW, why hasn't Raspublican polled The Quitter's favorability lately? Seems a tad suspicious considering he never misses an opportunity to put out push polls that are extremely favorable to her.
BDP, it already has. If one believes the numbers in the report, then 8% of those leaving the AARP are leaving to join the ASA, which doesn't seem a big number to me.
Also how big a membership does the AARP have? They claim 40 million members. So 0.15% of its members have quite over the healthcare stance, if we are to believe all the numbers. A tiny tiny drop in the ocean. I think losing a few tea baggers isn't going to bother the AARP that much really.
I thought Bush spent more political capital in his first term and didn't accomplish much in his second. Of course, the last two years with a Dem majority may be too recent & salient in memory.
He succeeded famously.
Yeah, like handing President Clinton a huge deficit (funny how every fiscally conservative Republican does that) and helping to create the Taliban, the organisation President Obama is fighting right now in Afghanistan.
And those are just two examples of how utterly lame Raygun was.
I think Bush spent all of his political capital in Iraq. I think without Iraq, he may well have been able to get some sympathy over a tanking economy. But Iraq turned a lot of people away from him.
Honestly, I think a health care bill without a public option will do the same for Obama. What political capital is is how much sympathy a politician will get when things go against them.
For the last 8 years, everyone in the Republican Party from the Bush administration to the Congressfolk to the think-tank "experts" to the talking heads gave us the exact same responses in the exact same way. They are an enormous, Borg-like behemoth. That is how they pushed their agenda through so well. They stick to their talking points, they never disagree with each other, they present a united front.
WHY is that so difficult for the Democrats? You would think it would be easy. It requires such little thought. Just memorize a few snappy lines and repeat them whenever anyone asks you a question.
"So 0.15% of its members have quite over the healthcare stance, if we are to believe all the numbers. A tiny tiny drop in the ocean. I think losing a few tea baggers isn't going to bother the AARP that much really."
Wishful thinking. The number is going to grow exponentially with all the publicity and the CBS article. 60k today, a million tomorrow. The AARP will regret their knee jerk support for Obamacare, with 40 million members they could have had much more influence than merely rubber stamping this proposal.
markymark said...
It is interesting when you look at the disapproval line, the only red dots above the line recently have come from Rasmussen.
The outliers are all polls of adults. Polling of non voters is a complete waste of time.
The near outliers are polls of registered voters. Polling of voters who will not in fact vote is a complete waste of time.
Politically, the only population that matters are those who vote and the only pollster who is polling this population is Rasmussen.
The AARP losing 60,000 seems signifigant until you realize they have over 40 million members and lose an average of 300,000 members a month anyway...
He should have focused on resolving the Economy, Wall Street and Credit reform, Gitmo and Iraq withdraw this year. The economy will rebound by 2010 and he would have gained significant capital. In 2010 shift focus to Education then climate. He could have been successful on those issues. In 2011 he could have focused squarely on Healthcare reform. I have confidence that he'll make significant progress but I don't know if anything will get done. They went for the jugular to soon.
dgo, I disagree and I agree entirely with Obama's point. We can't compete in a global economy with our current system. Now I know no one wants to admit that, but the 10-15% per year increases, the price it adds to every good produced or sold in the U.S. is completely unsustainable. This debate is truly about being penny wise, pound foolish
BDP, is Obama only President of the people who are 'likely voters' then? Are TV viewing figures made up of only likely voters? No. This is not poll with any relevance to an election. To be honest the important thing is not the actual numbers, it is the trendline, and the trendline IS obviously downwards. But I think that a lot of this has to do with dissapointment from the left. You can be dissaproving of the President and eventually vote for them again, or approve of the President but vote for someone else. In terms of the reelect, this far out approval numbers mean very little (Remember the difference between George HW Bush's approval at this time and Bill Clinton's).
Obama's important task is to get some political victories, through health care and some meaningful environmental legislation perhaps. I think that once congress returns people will get there heads together and sort all of this out.
"Obama hasn't gone to the mat for progressives and independents, you know, the people who actually voted for him, on anything so far."
Ahh, therein lies the fallacy. Progressives voted for him, and for Kerry and Gore too. But Obama was not ELECTED by progressives, he was elected by moderates and independents, whose support he is losing.
We need to get past being so obsessed with the day to day fluctuations in poll numbers. Obama's approval ratings are entirely irrelevant at this point. I won't worry about his popularity until we get close to an actual election.
It is entirely unrealistic to expect his numbers not to ebb and flow as things change. Every president will be unpopular at times, thats just the nature of the job. They sometimes have to make unpopular decisions, or have to participate in unpopular activities.
He is still more popular than he is unpopular, and even if that changes in the short term, he has proven time and again that he knows how to do effective damage control. When it counts, his PR team will kick up their game and his numbers will improve.
markymark said...
BDP, is Obama only President of the people who are 'likely voters' then?
We are talking about political capital on this thread. The apolitical non-voter cannot generate or remove political capital.
The reason Obama is losing his capital is that he is triangulating.
No public option = no bill from the house.
Enough poetry already.
"Wuz"? Seriously? That's so wrong I can't even call it a typo - it's just shameful!
LV is a useless value unless you're near election time.
Using LV to gauge the countries support or disdain for policy doesn't make sense either unless it's around election time. Nobody has any idea what a LV would be years out.
Anyone arguing otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about or does but is won't concede because it wouldn't fit into their argument.
are those leaving the AARP the ones who died from old age? or are they the nuts who think medicare has no connection to the government?
either way dumb and dumber.
In my opinion Obama was hijacked.
What mant of us voted for was change we can believe in. That is not what we are getting. Instead we are getting more of the same.
Proof of that is demonstrated when those of us who are liberal, progressive, and not right wing nuts, raise our voices, and share our opinions, and are convused by the Obama administration and office to control the message with the GOP, the insurance cos etc.
GET THIS STRAIGHT:
Health care is not the same as health insurance.
Tranparancy is not served by avoiding the issues and propaganda, oh, excuse me, PR.
So, tell me again, what is the war in Afghanistan about? Democracy? Gas pipelines? No? Now who is in denial?
So when did a coup in Honduras become consistant with US interests in Latin America?
Why attacks on Iran? Is this not a continuing police of the Bush administration, paying $400 mill to destabilize Iran? Common, lets have some of that transparancy, OK?
The Gitmo Uighurs, admitidly trained by Abdul Haq, an AKA for a Uighur who is a senior al Qaida opperative, are being released, instead of being returned to China. Change we can believe in, or more anti-commie rhetoric? Please. We need to know who are real enemies are, and sometimes they are us.
And, OH BTW, bail out wall street and misrepresent the unemployment numbers. So, who is it the Obama administration is fooling, anyway?
Immigration policy reform? Does that mean the illegals return to country of origin and get in line, and the US spends stimulous moner for training programs so our inner city youth can get jobs not jails?
These are the reasons for the tumble of Obama's "support." You see, it never was about Obama, but it was about our hopes and dreams, it was about Change We Can Believe IN, not More of the Same.
You guys need to give Obama more credit. He's not going to smell like roses at every moment, especially when he's shoveling out the barn. But he WILL make progress. Even if he doesn't get it all done in the first go, he's a lot more savvy than you're giving him credit for.
Be patient!
"or are they the nuts who think medicare has no connection to the government?"
A lot more nuts around I guess....despite all the favorable media and editorials and big $$ on ads approval is still falling.
"And according to a brand-new NBC News poll, 47% of Americans -- a plurality -- oppose the public plan, versus 43% who support it. That's a shift from last month's NBC/WSJ poll, when 46% said they backed it and 44% were opposed."
The point is that a major overhaul on an important matter should have more than 43% approval, or even more than 60%. If a truly bi-partisan bill was approved, Obama would still get the credit.
liberal_defender_of_freedom said...
LV is a useless value unless you're near election time. Using LV to gauge the countries support or disdain for policy doesn't make sense either unless it's around election time. Nobody has any idea what a LV would be years out.
Likely voters are consistent over time, which is why they are called likely voters. All credible likely voter formulas are founded on this principle.
Today's gallup:
Obama 52/42 approval/disapproval, down from 58/36 just over a week ago where Nate Silver said the following:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/economic-headlines-you-wont-see-on.html
"I said two weeks ago that if the job loss number declined to 250,000 or so, it would be a game-changer. I was not making a prediction about what the employment numbers would look like. I was merely saying that if this occurred, it would probably be enough to change the tenor of the debate in Washington. Republicans have to be very careful now about not overplaying their hand on health care."
I think it's safe to say that conservatives and Republicans smell blood. It's clear from the polling data that Obama has received no "bounce" from the alleged positive economic data. In fact, the healthcare controversy has stepped on any bounce that he would have received.
I think there is a real chance that Obama's numbers are artificially low at the moment, because of the fight over healthcare. Its one of those 'noone wants to see the sausage being made' moments. A deal will get done, we liberals and progressives just need some patience. Oh and get lobbying your representatives for a public option. Do it now.
PorridgeGun wrote:
"The conservative nutbase, particularly FReeptards."
As I understand it, the term FReeptard comes from the following:
FReep - FreeRepublic
tard - Retarded people
Making fun of conservatives is fine, but do you have to make fun of the mentally disabled?
Does your hatred of Sarah Palin stem from the fact that she had the gall to give birth to a baby with Down Syndrome?
Look, these are huge political forces at work, with tons of money and the media on their side. Do you think ANYONE would look as good right now?
I think he's doing quite well, really.
Too many ignorant Americans are letting the corporations pull their strings, in an effort to kill what the American public needs, the chuckleheads.
We've been taking away from the work he's doing for us. If this doesn't pass, it won't have been President Obama's fault. It will have been our own.
Mo Rage
The blog
and I agree with you, Donna.
Mo Rage
Bart DePalma said...
markymark said...
BDP, is Obama only President of the people who are 'likely voters' then?
We are talking about political capital on this thread. The apolitical non-voter cannot generate or remove political capital.
August 18, 2009 12:28 PM
A non-voter can create political capital by registering to vote, contacting their representatives, engaging in the public discourse, and voting. This is precisely what got Obama elected and gave him coattails in the last election (especially in areas with large numbers of youth and minorities). Part of Obama and the Democratic Partiy's problem is that these people have not remained involved. While they may not show up for the mid-term you can bet all the African-American voters that came out for Obama in 2008 will most likely vote again in 2012 and they will overwhelmingly vote for his reelection.
I would argue that in fact political capital doesn't come from opinion polls at all. It comes from being able to keep meaningful political supporters on board. By that I mean elected representatives. The only time voters have political capital to give and take is in the polling booth.
Doesn't this analysis assume that Obama's current decisions/direction are influenced by today's polling? Obviously all Presidents care to some extent what people think of them...more so in election years. But I can't imagine Obama taking Position X vs. Position Y in a long-term fight such as Health Care Reform based on current polling. As evidenced by his successful campaign (which few thought he'd pull off as of Dec. '07), Obama tends to play a longer-term, 'rope-a-dope' strategy that won't be influenced by myopic polling/thinking. He's simply leaning against the ropes, taking the punches of his opponents (from both sides of the aisle) and wearing those opponents out...just ask Hillary. All the while we (and the Media) get something to talk about. We'll be left with Health Care Reform that isn't as good/bad as it could be, and Obama will be left standing as the victor.
Obama has painted himself into a corner way over on the left and the gal who handed him the brush was some skinny unemployed mom with a Facebook account.
This is Jimmy Carter all over again, a one termer full of ideals who is out of step with the country and too inexperienced to make the necessary compromises.
Mugged. Come on. I suppose Bush was mugged every time leftie nuts picketed and protested him? The protests are not always as civil as I would like, but they are honest and genuine. And they reflect real concerns about the fiscal and medical implications of Obama's plan. His overall approval rating isn't the point: it's the more serious decline of his ratings on health care that are spooking legislators who, after all, have to vote on the plan and don't necessarily enjoy Obama's personal charms and skills (nor the three years cushions before their next election). He's lost this debate.
Another reason voters are upset is that, despite the pleas for a "civil national conversation on health care", the Dems tried to ram this through exactly to prevent any constituent feedback. It's a bit too transparent for them to now want "conversation".
I do agree with the Bush parallel. Just as Bush could have done a major service to the country by offering a real, bipartisan entitlement fix, but instead blew it by trying to ram through a down the line GOP plan, Obama is blowing any real hope of a consensus health care fix. He has refused any real concessions to good ideas (like tort reform) that don't come from his side of the aisle. Problem is, while the Dems have a big majority, liberals do not.
I cannot believe how inept the President has been handling this public option thing. His own trial balloon sank like lead. "Sliver" indeed! Howard Dean is now running the party.
Obama can tell that he has exposed his liberal leanings and that conservatives are united against him and moderates are peeling away. All he has left is his base which is only 20% of the country so he is left bw a rock and hard place!
Trendline: Negative
petekent01 (on twitter)
PS: I think Howard Dean and Nate are having a bromance!
petekent01
markymark said...
BDP, it already has. If one believes the numbers in the report, then 8% of those leaving the AARP are leaving to join the ASA, which doesn't seem a big number to me.
Also how big a membership does the AARP have? They claim 40 million members. So 0.15% of its members have quite over the healthcare stance, if we are to believe all the numbers. A tiny tiny drop in the ocean. I think losing a few tea baggers isn't going to bother the AARP that much really.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More spin from BDP, because hey, that's what Rep trolls do at progressive blogs, they spin. Like PK talking about faux news ratings incessantly, which indicate nothing except many bigots are really unhappy an African/American family is living in the White House, I digress.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics ~ Mark Twain
It's the "biggest challenge" in a very small window.
You didn't really think picking the White House dog four months ago was going to be the big one did you?
The worrying thing is that the media do seem to be picking up, at least in a small way, the AARP numbers story.
Liberal media?? Seriously?? Seems like the media have been doing a lot of the right wings leg work over healthcare recently.
cruses99610 said...
Ahh, therein lies the fallacy. Progressives voted for him, and for Kerry and Gore too. But Obama was not ELECTED by progressives, he was elected by moderates and independents, whose support he is losing.
Full of shit much?
Apparently you think independents are all moderate to centre-right. If Obama's losing moderates, where do think they're going? Certainly not going to the Republicans. People are becoming disillusioned because Obama isn't delivering the fundamental change he promised. Wingnuts repeatedly called it SOCIALISM and "palling around with terrorists", yet Obama still won by the biggest margin in 20 years. I bet you're on of these FReeptards who kept pushing the Bradley Effect, huh?
Progressives didn't vote for Al Gore, at least nowhere near the numbers you think. Ralph Nader was obviously the main benficiary of progressives abandoning the Democratic ticket. And most of them held their noses to vote against Bush in 2004. So, to compare Gore/Kerry to Obama is absurd. Besides, McCain had been portrayed for years in the "librul media" as Mr. Straight Talker, moderate, reach across the isle Maverick, and still had his ass handed to him to him by the Kenyan Marxist who has close ties to Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and who supported infanticide and perverted sex education for kids.
Obama ran on ending the Iraq war, redeploying troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich and giving a tax cut to the middle class, not to mention reforming healthcare with a public option. And later on in the campaign, pledging to clean up the ecomonic disaster Bush-Cheney and Republicans left for him.
So far, Obama has only delivered on redeploying troops to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and giving a tax cut to the middle class, which for the first time Obama reminded people of at the townhalls Montana and Colorado.
Obama's losing support from independents for one simple reason: he's not doing what he promised he'd do during the campaign, or is moving too slowly. It's the classic trying to please everyone, but ending up pleasing no one. Tony Blair did the exact same thing in his first full year as PM.
As for the economy, there are still question marks but every reasonable person accepts Obama has pulled America from the brink of another Republican created depression, and is now slowly recovering from a severe recession. Isn't it interesting that Michael Steele was out there the other week saying the stimulus has nothing to do with the recovery? A few weeks before, the Republicans were saying this was the Obama Recession. Funny that.
Mule Rider, go molest the neighbours cat or something.
My prediction...
After health care reform passes with a public option in October, grog, PK, BDP and the rest of the self proclaimed prophets on here will hide in disgrace as many of them did shortly after Nov. 4.
As usual, the conservaturds are overshooting and have managed to turn off more of their party with their vile hatred of anyone not like them and instigation through ignorance ala Moosolini and others. The remaining nutjobs Republicans left, apart from a couple moderates, continue their fairy tail la la land ideas where taking care of our own people is a bad idea.
Anyone notice how Republicans aren't coming up with any solutions they can get behind regarding health care? How for them, passing the buck onto the next generation and not dealing with it is their answer?
Not a peep.
No ideas. No solutions. Nothing. Just no no no.
What kind of leadership is that?
None of the above. What is really going on is that the usually astute Pollster.com and 538 are being rolled by Rasmussen. Rasmussen has done seven polls with data collection ending in August. Gallup has done six such polls, and seven other pollers have done one each. If you eliminate the Rasmussen polls and count just the latest Gallup (or for that matter all the Gallups) with the seven others, the favorable/ unfavorable margin grows to +15. It is only because Pollster.com insists on counting all seven Rasmussen polls (which show a net unfavorable rating) that it looks like Obama's favorability rating has fell alarmingly.
GROG,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=freeptard
An individual, usually possessing radically right-wing political views, who delights in insulting others and is usually racist, sexist, and homophobic.
Derived from freeper, the nickname of the denizens of the ultra-right wing Web site FreeRepublic.com.
I actually think that's waaaay too narrow a description for these delusional FOX Nation psychopaths.
markymark said...
The worrying thing is that the media do seem to be picking up, at least in a small way, the AARP numbers story.
Liberal media?? Seriously?? Seems like the media have been doing a lot of the right wings leg work over healthcare recently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pretty much the only way the cable news media minutia increase their ratings is by a "big story" breaking or by creating disingenuous controversy by lying, demagoguing an issue ie fox news. And it's wayyy easier now w/Obama as president as fixed is totally in the tank for Reps.
It's all about ratings, if it bleeds, it leads. Although the Glenn Beck situation it is kinda amusing w/him losing advertisers because he called Obama a racist. Oops!
Because hey, as always, the bottom line is the bottom line.
Just like many posters at 538 are shouting to be heard above the crowd, this too is the concept of cable news. Being noticed ie Olbermann/Billo, Billo/Olbermann/G.E., Hannity's consistent negativity re: Obama, thus appeasing his audience. Glenn Beck is just "bat shit crazy" who doesn't love a train wreck, eh.
Why do you think Tweety constantly has Mein Furor buchanan on as a guest. Why did/does Morning Joe have Elizabeth Cheney on consistently.
Whatever grabs the highest ratings. This is not rocket science.
Princess Diana would never go away just like Michael Jackson.
Plus as I mentioned previously, the media doesn't really report the news anymore, they are, in fact mostly wannabe celebrities w/their own shows trying to sell their books.
Who were asleep at the wheel both before and after 9/11 just as cheney/bush were asleep.
And so it goes, as America pretty much gets what it deserves when American Idol continues to be the highest rated show lol why, you guessed it, controversy.
carry on
M.R.
Republicans have ZERO solutions for our health care problem. And tort reform is a bunch of crap as far as reducing individuals costs as can be seen in MO, FL, TX and CA where cost haven't gone down.
Everyone just remember, Republicans are good at PR, nothing more, nothing less.
They have ZERO logical solutions to problems. They have no idea how to lower Medicare costs and can't even unite behind a single solution. Heck, even Grassley says he can't get a consensus to support his bill and may be forced to vote against it.
Republicans don't care about rising costs, on't give a damn about Americans struggling and would rather let the President sink along with the well being of millions of Americans.
In fact, Republicans propaganda is responsible for 10's of thousands losing health insurance every day and millions more dying because they don't have sufficient care.
Republicans are pretty much the pro-sick American, pro-dead American party.
All that matters to them is power.
I'll go as far as saying Republican and conservative propoganda have caused more American deaths than al-Qaeda.
How's them apples.
I notice you have no defense (nor do I expect one) of your:
a) radical, leftist Marxism, and
b) support for "conservacide" (the murder of conservatives).
I threw in the "ties with Lucifer" as a bonus piece of hyperbolic rhetoric, but given your persistent and vehement anti-God and anti-Christian message, I don't think I'm too far off course.
LMAO!!!
BTW, I consider myself a progressive independent, have never voted Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Socialist or Green, and agnostic when it comes to GOD™ and religion.
Try nailing that down.
"conservacide"
LMAO!!!
Sorry if this is a bit of a non sequeter (sp?), but has someone already mentioned that maybe Obama's talking about dropping the public option is a tactic to get the Left riled up? Paul Kruggman was observing just the other day in a NYT column that it seemed as if there was no passion on the Left for health care reform, and no indignation at the lies that were being promulgated by the Right. It seems that now that Barry has suggested sacrificing the public option, the Left is showing some signs of life. Maybe it's his way of not-so-subtly encouraging the Proggies to 'hold his feet to the fire' and maybe even organize some primary challenges to put pressure on wayward dems?
MR,
Can you deny the fact conservative and Republican PR, by crushing health care reform, will cause more deaths in the next few years than al-Qaeda has caused?
All for what?
Free markets?
Seriously. It's frickin' evil and people should be up in arms they've been completely taken over by corporate interests that are willing to let people die for a dollar.
I always thought that this was a more accurate poll compilation than Pollster.com:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Porridge Gun would have us believe that Indies are abandoning Obama bc he has not been liberal enuf.
"Obama's losing support from independents for one simple reason: he's not doing what he promised he'd do during the campaign, or is moving too slowly."
Hogwash and the polls show it. Indies are moving in parallel with GOP voters on the major issues -- the shift may not be as profound, but the vectors are all there.
Obama has been exposed as a left wing ideologue, as to which many gave him the benefit of the doubt on in the campaign, but now all can see that he is much further to the left than he portrayed himself and he is losing support because of it.
He tried to move to the Center over the weekend and got slapped down by the Liberal Commentariat and its leader, Howard Dean, and thus he allowed himself it seems to be pushed left again, even when his political instincts tell him to "triangulate".
He tried to unlearn one lesson of Bill Clinton's by abandoning healthcare reform to the Congress (he over corrected and risks losing control) and now he is ignoring the one that re-made Clinton politically: Liberals must move Right when their flanks are exposed.
Very negative Trend lines here for Obama.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Jeffrey said...
Bart DePalma said... We are talking about political capital on this thread. The apolitical non-voter cannot generate or remove political capital.
A non-voter can create political capital by registering to vote, contacting their representatives, engaging in the public discourse, and voting.
Then they would become likely voters. The fact is that these folks are apathetic and can't be bothered to vote nevertheless get out and lobby their representatives.
This is precisely what got Obama elected and gave him coattails in the last election (especially in areas with large numbers of youth and minorities).
Actually, turnout was not appreciably higher except among African Americans thrilled with the prospect of electing a fellow African American as President.
Part of Obama and the Democratic Partiy's problem is that these people have not remained involved.
Agreed, but then again this has always been a Dem problem. The most reliable voters are middle age, middle income married folks with children because they tend to be more responsible because they bear more responsibility for their families. These folks tend to be more conservative and more likely to vote GOP.
While they may not show up for the mid-term you can bet all the African-American voters that came out for Obama in 2008 will most likely vote again in 2012 and they will overwhelmingly vote for his reelection.
No and yes.
In 2010, the African American vote will not be a significant factor in the battleground red districts where the incumbent Blue Dog and the GOP challenger will be competing to see who is the bigger conservative.
However, the African American vote should be out in force for Obama in 2012, especially if the Dems play the race card that the racist white GOP is after the black man on the white house. It will be interesting, though, to see if these voters show up in the same numbers as 2008 now that the novelty is gone.
Seriously,
You bozo's cheering on health care reform being crushed are cheering on the death of your fellow American's.
I hope your proud of yourselves.
I find it amazing how quickly the "progressives" launch the name calling.
Same with idiots like PK cheering on the death panel propaganda.
I hope that ignoramus Palin realized she just crushed the likelihood elderly people would be able to afford end of life counseling.
You all take too much pride in your ignorance.
Patrick,
There is no passion in this country for a public option. Only wonks and leftwinguts care about it because they want a government takeover of healthcare as they do not trust the people to manage their own lives and always want to supplant the popular will with their own supposed wisdom.
Americans still remain suspicious of government and the longer Obama presides over an anemic economy that cannot produce jobs or economic growth, the more his Administration will be seen as a Poster Child for Government Failure , as witness the very negative polling on his signature initiative, his un-simulative, but much ballyhooed, Stimulus Legislation.
It seems we no longer have to hope Obama fails – he seems to have already done so and all that is left is for the string to play out. NEXT!
petekent01 (on twitter)
"..really unhappy an African/American family is living in the White House, I digress."
Yep, that's it. Disagree with Obama on any issue and you are racist. So convenient, you don't have to analyze any issue, just make it about race. Good luck with that as a permanent banner for liberals.
MR.
Al-Qaeda might be more evil but the propaganda is crushing health care reform and it's coming from conservative groups.
Health care reform would help millions from getting sick and dying.
You bozo's are cheering that on. How can you cheer on the death of American's? It's disgusting.
Heck, I don't even have to connect the dots. You can go ahead and do that yourself.
Health Care Reform defeat = unhealthy dead Americans
Conservative groups want health care reform defeat.
Where am I wrong in this?
It's inhumane.
It seems to me, Liberal Defender, that a government takeover will lead to more deaths as care is rationed and access denied for all so that a few may have access who lacked it before. I don't think that is a good trade off.
Obama is all about making us more equal. That's a laudable goal on the surface, but his method is to simply drag down the haves while only slightly elevating the have nots and reveling in the shared misery while he and the Mrs. jet off to Paris for another vay kay.
He would have made an excellent member of Brezhnev’s Politburo.
petekent01 (on twitter)
MR,
The civil debate ended when American's for Prosperity encouraged people to shout down their Congressmen.
Now its time to point out what crushing reform means.
Crushing reform means more Americans get sick and die.
Who is for that? Seriously. It's not like we're some savage banana republic that lets their citizens rot away are we?
PK,
People are dying now. Over 10k a day lose their health insurance. There is no statistic anywhere on the planet that supports your claim more would die.
On the contrary, even socialized medicine has a longer life expectancy than us. And we're not even looking to implement that.
Who is Amercian's for Prosperity and why is anyone listening to them? You seem to be their only fan!
Do you really think something this widespread that developed overnight could be orchestrated like that?
Have more faith in your fellow citizens, Liberal Defender (of hypocrisy!)
petekent01 (on twitter)
Petey,
Well me and my Stalinist cohorts don't need the public to be passionate about the public option in order to launch primary challenges against moderate dems now do we? Indeed all we need are some leftwingnuts to get riled up, which was, if you'll recall my supposition to begin with. i dont much care if the public wants a public plan or not. I know whats good for them because i went to college and love the social sciences but hate guns.
thus i still say, if i were Obama (a fantastical scenario i dream about every night, btw)i would be looking for ways to encourage grassroots activism on the left in order to put pressure on *certain* Congress folks. and casually suggesting that maybe i would consider dropping the public option might just be a way to do that, no?
PK thinks saving money is more important that peoples lives.
That is what he's fighting for.
Corporate money.
What a waste of a person.
Fix Medicaid. Fix Medicare. Our most vulnerable populations, the poor and the infirm eldery, are crying out for help
Let's fix the two broken govt run programs we have now and let's get behind some insurance industry reform. Nothing that Obama sez sugggests we need to destroy the private insurance marketplace.
Perhaps he is trying to avenge those that he thinks are to blame for his mother's death????
petekent01 (on twitter)
And MR.
Cry me a frickin' river. Conservative idiots suggesting Democrats are instituting death panels is no different from what I'm suggesting.
Only difference is, Democrats aren't suggesting death panels and conservative propaganda could possibly crush health care reform and thousands of Americans will get sick and die without help.
Patrick:
Statements like this (yours) are what will assure the Dems are thrown out of office. You actually wrote: "i dont much care if the public wants a public plan or not. I know whats good for them because i went to college and love the social sciences but hate guns."
The frustration of the Left in not having their "wisdom" revered will lead to their downfall.
I welcome your leftist party challenges, let your party feed upon itself and we will replace these Blue Dogs with some Big Dogs!
Liberal defender what you wrote was a non-sequitor. Either than or I am too botuse to figure you out!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Re: the liberal media ...
Obama's quote: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or anti-pathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." was first reported by the Huffington Post because hey, it was news!
Unlike fixed, who knew about Sanford/Ensign cheating on their wives and (((tried))) to cover-up and did not report the "news". Which was stupid, because news will always surface, despite a clueless news service like fixed trying to cover it up.
but, but, but, fixed policy is do not report any news detrimental to Reps! whereas HP and Arianna are constantly reporting negative articles re: the Dems and Obama because they are loyal to the country and not the Dem party!
and paraphrasing Obama's quote, it's not surprising older, white, southern bigots are clinging to fixed news in record #s now that an African/American family is living in the White House! because it gives them a racist outlet for all their frustrations. ;)
g'day
http://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/3388853725
"our national poll on obama's approval continues recent trend in state polling- his voters are happy with him, very few of McCain's are"
A little tell that Obama is below 50% in terms of approval.
I'll predict everyone is within 7 in the data released later this week.
Between Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP there are perhaps 115 million Americans already benefiting from a “public option”. It seems to me that the growth of these programs since the 1960s has coincided with the acceleration of the “crisis in healthcare”.
We have already experimented with the public option and it has failed. It is time to fix the existing federal systems and not create new ones.
The only reason why folks like Medicare is that it is subsidized by the folks who pay for private health insurance or their own care. If it were not for those subsidies these programs would really be broke (Medicare even with the private sector subsidy is underfunded to the tune of 42 TRILLION DOLLARS).
Why throw good money after bad? The public options we have now are failures. Let’s not compound the folly!
Healthcare reform: scale it back and let’s fix what’s already broken!
petekent01 (on twitter)
"The Terrance Group and Lake Research Partners recently released the results for the George Washington University Battleground Poll taken in July. The fall 2008 results showed 57 percent considered themselves very conservative or somewhat conservative. July 2009 results show a 2 point jump to 59 percent."
The strategy of calling opponents to Obamacare racists might not be working out that well. There may be extremists on both sides of the issue, but insulting and denigrating the 50% plus Americans who are unconvinced about this plan is going to backfire in a big way. The AARP membership reaction is the tip of the iceberg.
ohkay pete. u r right. i m so dum and librul. but seriously, does anyone else think that maybe obama is just saying that he might get rid of the public option in order to get progressives angry and activisty? is that a silly idea? it might be, i'll admit, becuz i m dum and a librul and don't know what real america wants at all.
PorridgeGun's cited definition of FReeptard:
An individual, usually possessing radically right-wing political views, who delights in insulting others and is usually racist, sexist, and homophobic.
And calling someone a "tard" is calling them a retard.
Sounds like someone who delights in insulting others.
What's your definition of someone who makes fun of retarded people?
Patrick,
You must be very naive. Other than Howard dean and the kooks who walk the halls at MSNBC studio few people get "passionate" about the public option. You are far too small a subset of the population to matter.
What is easy to understand is that the people do not want government excessively involved in their lives and for many thinking that the hand that is cupping your balls is connected somehow to the government is too tight a squeeze indeed!
petekent01 (on twitter)
You know what I like? A "liberal" blog whose "progressive" members are more closeminded than Jerry Falwell at a Gay Pride parade.
Substantive debate, not name-calling and childish soundbite, is what gets real reform accomplished.
As long as the left-wing insists on it's condescending, insulting, our-way-or-you-are-evil-greedy-and-stupid, their support will continue to erode, their elected officials will distance themselves, and they will go back to being marginalized.
For all the ranting about how Bush abused his power, pushed through a right wing agenda, and basically f-ed up the country (and how all that was criminal, evil and undemocratic) the lefties don't seem to have any compunction about urging their leader to do the same.
Bear in mind, while you draw breath inbetween spittle-flecked caterwauling, the President Obama was elected because moderates and independents thought he would be moderate and independent. Now that the bloom is off the rose, and he has shown that he is a left wing idealogue in the pocket of simply a different set of lobbyists, they realize that the change they were looking for (transparency, fiscal discipline, less overseas entanglements, perhaps less special interest domination of politics) ain't coming from him.
This non-productive, self-masturbatory keening over Health care, political capital and (ridiculously) how Obama isn't being progressive enough, is entertaining, in a slow-motion car-wreck kind of way.
Those of us who are of a more libertarian bent will wait to see which side actually wants liberty, as opposed to right-wing tyranny or left wing tyranny.
Good article, Tom. I don't care what they say about you.
I read the headline and immediately thought that an answer to your multiple choice was missing:
E. all of the above.
This is a crucial turning point for Obama (as is evidenced by the salivating of all the trolls in this comment section). I HOPE that Obama makes the right decision and promotes real CHANGE (emphasis on hope and change mine) in health insurance reform.
It's kind of sad to watch the health insurance industry sit back and throw money at opponents of change and congressional members to whip up a frenzy of fearmongering based upon lies and distortions. It will be a sad day in America to see them defeat our president and our last champion of reform. Last, you ask? If this fails, what politician in their right mind would ever dare to take on corporations ever again? Orwell was 20 years off and it wasn't the government that was the threat. It was the stockholders.
i already agreed with you petey! now quit picking on me lest i summon the KGB and have ye carted off to a concentration camp for annoying Patriots, as is my wont. I am addressing my question to the other libtards in the room -your objections are duly noted.
PorridgeGun:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tard
Urban dictionary's definition of "tard".
Tard - Adjective used to describe one so retarded, they do not deserve the 're'
Nice PorridgeGun. You're a class act.
Excellent post by Lehman above.
Really puts the screws to you screwy Libs -- and warns that the GOP needs to get engaged with the people and stop being a DC-Based party. My takeways.
Calling Dr. Palin?
petekent01 (on twitter)
Grog,
The English only have compassion for dogs. Besides ever since Trig Palin became a household name, it is best not to talk about the developmentally disabled. Not really our kind of victims, you know?
petekent01 (on twitter)
Lehman said...
You know what I like? A "liberal" blog whose "progressive" members are more closeminded than Jerry Falwell at a Gay Pride parade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know what I like, cheney/bush's party getting wiped out in the '06/'08 elections! and Reps like yourself, still trying to rationalize/apologize for cheney/bush's destruction of the Rep party.
btw, Falwell wouldn't be caught dead or alive at a Gay Pride parade!
Falwell's top ten quotes!
1. "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" --on the 9/11 attacks
4. "Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America."
5. "Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them."
9. "The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews."
Click on link for the top ten. Honestly, Falwell made Glenn Beck appear sane, ok I exaggerate. ;)
take care
PK,
As I said above, much of the hate that the PorridgeGuns of the world have for Sarah Palin stems from the fact that she did not abort her Down Syndrome child.
Nobody is cheering on reform being "crushed." There are just a lot of people who don't want this to head the wrong direction and make things worse than they currently are
Yes, that's certainly the impression I got when Senator Jim DeMint said "If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him..."
I love the very idea that Republicans aren't trying to stop health care reform - yes, Republicans are so stupid that they don't realize that Obama getting health care through would create another twenty-year Democratic majority. They are simply thinking about America and certainly not their own political fortunes.
And they're so stupid that they stopped health care reform in 1994, then gained the Congress and later the Presidency and STILL didn't pass reform, and now it's 2009 and they are AGAIN trying to stop any hint of a health care bill, and yet this WHOLE TIME they wanted health care reform! They are just so utterly incompetent that they have managed to scuttle it every time!
PeteKent said...
Really puts the screws to you screwy Libs -- and warns that the GOP needs to get engaged with the people and stop being a DC-Based party. My takeways.
Calling Dr. Palin?
Indeed.
New poll out today: PRESIDENT OBAMA TROUNCES THE QUITTER
Marist Poll: Obama Leads Palin by 23 Points, 61 Percent of Americans Say Resignation Hurt Her Chances
http://washingtonindependent.com/55473/marist-poll-obama-leads-palin-by-23-points-61-percent-of-americans-say-her-resignation-hurt-her-chances
Even as the president’s approval rating slips, Republicans looking to beat him in 2012 — one of their frontrunners, one-time governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, might be unelectable. A new Marist Poll gives President Obama a 56-33 lead over Palin among registered voters, with the president taking 20 percent of Republican voters and easily winning independents.
And that's after what will likely prove to be the suckiest three months of Obama's presidency. Imagine what the margin would be if Obama quit stalling on campaign promises, gave it rest with this bipartisanship crap and reaching out to wingnuts who want to see him fail, and actually governed as a progressive President.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/obama-trounces-palin-in-poll.html
The Marist Poll is out with new numbers today showing President Obama soundly defeating former Gov. Sarah Palin 56 percent to 33 percent if they were the candidates in the 2012 election and if it was strangely held in August 2009.
There are a couple of clear and important warning signs for Gov. Palin in these early numbers.
She appears unable to create the near monolithic support among voters in her own party. In this poll, Gov. Palin only receives support from 73% of Republicans. Gov. Palin’s outsized popularity with a segment of the Republican Party may not necessarily translate to the entire Republican electorate in a general election. By comparison, Sen. McCain garnered 90% of the Republican vote in his defeat to Barack Obama last November.
It also appears Gov. Palin has some continued work to do to turn her high profile resignation into a political plus. 61 percent of those polled said her resignation was a bad political move, according to Marist. In fact, among Republicans, 51 percent believe stepping down from office the way she did may have potentially damaged her political future.
Perhaps the most devastating number in this poll for Sarah Palin is the basic measurement of her popularity with the American electorate. Her numbers are upside down with 43 percent of respondents view her unfavorably, compared with 37 percent of respondents who hold a favorable view.
Like Bill Maher said after the election, "Sarah Palin is a real gut check for the Republican party."
Moreso now I reckon. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, perhaps the White House and David Plouffe consider The Quitter to be their insurance for 2012.
If PeteKent and the far-right loons at Free Republic get their way, Dems will keep the White House for the next 15 years.
I guess that 56% is attributed to her not aborting her Down Syndrome kid, aka Campaign Prop #1.
Or, perhaps, the majority of Americans reckon The Quitter is a blithering idiot.
In a June 20, 2009 NYT/CBS poll, 72% wanted a government plan to compete with the private plans. As of today, more oppose a public option than support it. Those of us who wanted national health insurance or a public option are now farther behind than when Obama took this on a few short months ago. Debacle.
My earlier point is not that the media is especially conservative, but that neither is it especially liberal. I think the healthcare coverage over the last few weeks should be proof enough of that.
Oh and incidentally if I have scorn for Palin that is linked to her Downs Syndrome child, it is that she had the disdain for her own child and her own family to join the national ticket of a major political party with a new born child in that condition, and then to use that child as a political prop. That didn't show a whole lot of motherly feeling towards that child to me. I think it would have been far more gallant and loving towards her family to say to Senator McCain 'I support you and your ideals, but I am in this position and I can't possibly leave my family in order to join you at this time.'
markymark:
Here in the 21st century, women are allowed to work outside the home. (Even if they have children)
Is Obama a bad father for having political aspirations?
INcidentally, here is an interesting line from the NBC/WSJ poll
'One of the reasons why it has become tougher is due to misperceptions about the president’s plans for reform.
Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants; would lead to a government takeover of the health system; and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress.
Forty-five percent think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly. '
---------------------------------
That is where the game is for Democrats in my view. Putting those perceptions straight, and making sure that people understand the GOP have been LYING about those accusations.
PorridgeGun,
Maybe you shouldn't make fun of the mentally disabled and insult Sarah Palin in the same post. At least try to wait for the next post to ridicule retarded people.
And BTW, Palin lost the election. She holds no political office.
I know you're infatuated with her but you've got to move on PorridgeGun. Move on.
GROG, my point was not that Palin had just had a young child, but that child was Downs. Added together with a young unmarried, pregnant child, if Palin had ant feeling for her family, and what was about to happen to it, she would have stood aside, as indeed Al Gore did before 1992 when his son was recovering from a nasty car accident. (Though obviously Al III had recovered enough to allow Gore to join the ticket later).
Men step aside from positions because of their families all the time. My point was not about Palin being a woman, it was about Palin not having enough feeling for her family to step aside rather than put them through everything that the campaign did.
the fact is, boys and girls, that the insurance companies have jumped their premiums to us by nearly 80%, even though, of course, our paychecks certainly haven't gone up near that (actually, 11.3%).
Insurance corporations are screwing us big time. Anyone in the lower and middle classes who isn't for a "public option" for health insurance is uninformed--or a fool, literally.
The truth, fortunately, and statistics (hard statistics, not opinion or rumor) are both getting out and it's making a difference. Too bad Republicans and conservatives can't and won't do what's good for the country instead of just being "against anything the Democrats are for", which is sadly, maddeningly, honestly and undeniably their stance.
Government health care works for government employees, Senators, Representatives, the military and everyone on Medicare and Medicaid. But no, no, it can't work for us.
Nonsense.
What seriously worries me about the American system is that electioneering takes precedent over policy. So, Obama's poll ratings are down. But, FDR never had to worry about poll ratings? He probably worried about Congress, the state of the economy,
how to manage Eleanor and his lady friend. But, FDR didn't have to worry about ephemereal popularity.
Reading the documentation, the public option is essential. But, a clever president has Plan B. Perhaps, a Co-op option strongly supported and heavily financed by the state is a good option? Perhaps,the Dem Congress can construct a law that will provide public support if not an option? Has BO been given wise political advice to organise a second political path?
If BO has any wisdom, he will concentrate on policy because if he gets the big things right he will reap the the political rewards. I hope BO has people around him telling him this.
What more can I say?
What seriously worries me about the American system is that electioneering takes precedent over policy. So, Obama's poll ratings are down. But, FDR never had to worry about poll ratings? He probably worried about Congress, the state of the economy,
how to manage Eleanor and his lady friend. But, FDR didn't have to worry about ephemereal popularity.
Reading the documentation, the public option is essential. But, a clever president has Plan B. Perhaps, a Co-op option strongly supported and heavily financed by the state is a good option? Perhaps,the Dem Congress can construct a law that will provide public support if not an option? Has BO been given wise political advice to organise a second political path?
If BO has any wisdom, he will concentrate on policy because if he gets the big things right he will reap the the political rewards. I hope BO has people around him telling him this.
What more can I say?
"43 percent of respondents view her unfavorably, compared with 37 percent of respondents who hold a favorable view."
So? The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9
So what is all the gloating about Palin about? Palin right now is a private citizen, I would worry more about Obama's numbers than hers....
markymark:
I totally respect (and tend to agree with) your position from your above post.
But, you also don't go around using terms like "tard". That's why I said "the PorridgeGuns of the world". You sir, are no PorridgeGun.
cruses99610 said...
"43 percent of respondents view her unfavorably, compared with 37 percent of respondents who hold a favorable view."
So? The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9
So what is all the gloating about Palin about? Palin right now is a private citizen, I would worry more about Obama's numbers than hers....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gloating? You mean besides the fact Obama is president for the next 3 er 7 years given the fact the Reps have no current leadership, ms "lipstick on a pig" quitting, notwithstanding.
Maybe 'cause Reps gloated about winning the previous 7 out of 10 presidential elections and before Nov. were continuing to gloat re: Obama having no chance to win the presidency.
So now all the Reps are left with is to continue on a daily basis to be disingenuously smug about being in the minority and as your post indicates, continue on a daily basis to quote meaningless tracking polls.
As PorridgeGun said, after (3) of probably the worst mos. Obama may have during his presidency he still leads palin 56/33.
run, sarah, run
When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to pause and reflect! ~ Mark Twain
You guys do recognize that Marist is on the high side for Obama.
His national average according to Pollster.com is now 51/45. Marist shows him at 55/35. For those of you who want to cite RCP's numbers, that's still on the high side for RCP's average.
PPP(D) is releasing its numbers nationally this thu or fri. We'll see what they say and you guys are going to have a tough time slamming PPP(D) based on their track record for the election and the fact that liberals do the polls.
Read and weep guys:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32464936/ns/politics-white_house/
45% of the country believes Obama's healthcare plan is likely going to lead to a "death panel."
That's 45% that is going to oppose any plan and you still don't have the 50% that do not believe Obamacare will lead to a death panel.
This one is over.
This is the time where I would like to announce the formation of 538.com's very first pan-contributor political alliance, a motley crew of like-minded right-leaning paragons:
Knights of the New Republic, or K.O.N.R.
Months in planning over feverish sessions where copious amounts of beer and spirits were consumed, the K.O.N.R. endeavors, from this moment on, to propel the discussion on these boards towards a re-invigorated Reaganite/Thatcherism.
Members as now, but growing:
Walker,
Missy @ itsalmostnaptime,
Pete Kent, and
Brian DePalma
Motto: Verum in Factum
Official Soundtrack: "Sheep" by the Housemartins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSBFkIKx46E
Are you in...or are you in?
TommyReport revels at the idea of thousands of Americans losing their health insurance daily, countless thousands dying a year because they can't get the treatment they need, thousands more going bankrupt because of medical costs and even more thousands having to choose between food and medication that see health care reform that will help them slipping away because conservative propaganda machines are affective.
So TommyReport, I guess congratulations in your win to everyone loss of well being?
And then there's Walker who idolized know-nothings like PK who get excited when ignoramuses like Palin think denying elder people financial support to receive end of life counseling is some sort of victory.
Your utter ignorance will be your defeat.
K.O.N.R. Press Release
8/18.09
10:03 PM
Liberal_defender_of_freedom,
Glad you defend and glad you like freedom.
As the noted philosopher Meat Load once said, "I love you...I need you...but there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you... But don't be sad (don't be sad) 'cause two out of three ain't bad..."
Fact: Dems stripped out the end year counseling provisions from the bill.
Correction:
K.O.N.R. Press Release
8/18.09
10:03 PM
Liberal_defender_of_freedom,
Glad you defend and glad you like freedom.
As the noted philosopher Meat Load once said, "I want you...I need you...but there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you... But don't be sad (don't be sad) 'cause two out of three ain't bad..."
Fact: Dems stripped out the end year counseling provisions from the bill.
Wow, this one drew the raving right-wing loonies out in droves.
I have to go with 'none of the above' from the options Nate suggested, though. He didn't count on retaining Republican support, and that's the only thing he's actually lost. He made his effort to show a willingness to be bipartisan, but when Republicans quite crudely threw that effort back in his face, he was ready to move on and accomplish things without them.
If you look at the polls that break down approval ratings by political orientation, the decline we've seen comes almost entirely from Republicans, going from a low but not knee-jerk-opposition level of support to frothing mindless visceral hatred. His approval rating among Republicans has gone from a net negative just barely below zero down to a net negative of over 80%, accounting for effectively the entire change in poll numbers.
President Obama's approval ratings among Democrats and independents have held generally steady at about 80% net positive and 40% net positive, respectively - and that's since the beginning of January. The Republican message machine has rallied their base against him, but they've been impressively incapable of spreading their willfully slanderous viewpoints outside the echo chamber.
Walker,
Liberal defender of freedom is quite the oxymoron, isn't it?
The polls are the polls folks.
Be content with Marist and Wash Po/ABC News.
Olbermann's face was pretty darn red this evening. You and Olbermann both know you have been defeated.
This bill is not going anywhere if 45% of the adults (not even regitered or likely voters) believes there are death panels in the bill.
NRH,
You making things up again?
"If you look at the polls that break down approval ratings by political orientation, the decline we've seen comes almost entirely from Republicans, going from a low but not knee-jerk-opposition level of support to frothing mindless visceral hatred. His approval rating among Republicans has gone from a net negative just barely below zero down to a net negative of over 80%, accounting for effectively the entire change in poll numbers.
President Obama's approval ratings among Democrats and independents have held generally steady at about 80% net positive and 40% net positive, respectively - and that's since the beginning of January. The Republican message machine has rallied their base against him, but they've been impressively incapable of spreading their willfully slanderous viewpoints outside the echo chamber."
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama-inds.php
Net +40 among indies? You added a zero, it's a net +4 in terms of approval among indies on average according to pollster.com.
He's not at a net-80 among Republicans. He's at a net -61 on average, meaning he has much lower to go among Republicans.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama-reps.php
TommyReport is proud of the ignorance that the phony death panel idea caught on.
Congratulations on being a gullible idiot I guess?
You and Walker make a perfect couple though indeed. Dumb and dumber. Too stupid much like Palin to even realize just how uninformed you sound.
Does anyone know of a good website/blog where we can have an adult, constructive discussion about politics? As much as I'd like to read over 100 posts of name-calling, alliance-creating, whining, more name-calling, etc. I'd rather watch cable news (oh wait, that won't help me either).
Patrick said...
Does anyone know of a good website/blog where we can have an adult, constructive discussion about politics? As much as I'd like to read over 100 posts of name-calling, alliance-creating, whining, more name-calling, etc. I'd rather watch cable news (oh wait, that won't help me either).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With trolls er kids like Walker, PK, TommyReport, who has a palin fetish, god love him, hard to have a rational discussion about anything much less politics.
And it's a given all progressive blogs have Rep trolls. Since they lost the election, liberal blogs gives these kids an outlet to whine, moan and groan and make complete horse's asses of themselves ie Walker said... K.O.N.R. Press Release who is screaming to be noticed!
And let me also quote the noted philosopher Meat Load lol. So now I'm praying for the end of time, to hurry up and arrive. Because if I have to spend another minute w/Walker, PK and Tommy, I love sarah, Report I don't think that I can really survive! ;)
Just finished watching day one and two of the WSOP on ESPN, much more enjoyable than dodging/avoiding trolls on the net.
Shiloh,
How am I trolling? You don't like the data that I'm presenting to you from NBC News? Take it up with Peter Hart.
It's not my fault that your guy is going down, leaving Nate Silver to have to hilariously cite the state-by-state Gallup data taken from January-June.
I hope Nate realized that Obama's gallup approval rating is right now 10 points lower than his 62% approval rating average in June.
You may have failed before you quit, but you've certainly failed if you quit.
Obama hasn't quit as far as I can tell.
Why Nate got it wrong on likely voters:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/likely_voters_and_midterm_elec.php
What's amazing is that even a conservative Republican congressman has conceded that the mini-mobs (this summer's news superstars) appear to be completely detached from reality. "You cannot build a movement on something that is not credible,'' Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina told the Los Angeles Times after being confronted by belligerent, fact-free protesters who were convinced that as part of health care reform, children would soon be forced to receive swine flu vaccinations. "At town meetings, the hostility went straight through to hysteria,'' said Inglis.
The "town hells" are really just mob rule masquerading as a health care debate, masquerading as direct democracy. Sadly, the news media are hyping both phony story lines. The press is taking the fringe players seriously, even the ones who spend their free time drawing up Obama-is-Hitler posters.
Obama's health care reform strategy seems to be finding most of the substantive contention around the "Public Option." I've got some bad news for the administration and its supporters: the Public Option's got issues. A lot of them. And they may even be terminal.
The Words
The two words in play, public and option, do anything to advance the meaning of the concept they are attempting to describe. "Public Option" reeks of echo-chamber-liberalism-trying-to-market-itself-as-acceptable language that, no surprise, hasn't worked.
The first problem is the word "public." "Public" indicates it's for everyone... like how a public park is for anyone who wants to enjoy said park. Yet, as legislation is evolving, the "Public Option" would not be for everyone. It'd be for some people, and in most bills in development, there are strict limitations on who can join the "Public Option."
Then there's the word "option." This is supposed to indicate that we as Americans will have another option in health care insurance. Yet, again, many will not have this option because -- thanks to the conservatives being so worried that if everyone takes this "option" then there will be no more private insurance -- there are a lot of firewalls defined that don't allow the Public Option to be a viable option for many who currently are covered by private insurance.
The Meaning
"Public Option" not only means nothing without additional context, but it also evokes socialistic sub-contexts thanks to the use of "public." In the supposedly less marketing-savvy days, some really good marketing/branding folks devised the terms "Medicare" and "Medicaid." The talent that named these programs must have long past, because "Public Option" pales in comparison. What does "Public Option" mean with very little context? It means that the public has an option. Why would the 80% of Americans who already have insurance want to pay even more taxes for another option that most won't ever use?
What the public wants is lower costs, better quality and -- when possible -- broader access. None of these meanings are conveyed by the term "Public Option."
The Message
The messengers for the "Public Option" really fumbled by not having a cogent response to the detractors who state that if a public option is so good, then why would we need private insurance companies? Take this to the logical conclusion, and if the government can provide superior services, then we will end up with a "single payer" system, which the Obama administration promises is not on the docket (even though Obama himself claimed that he was personally a proponent for single-payer as a U.S. Senator a few years ago). So, the lack of a strong defense against this Trojan Horse concern has given the detractors credibility because they're gaining traction in the "what comes next" argument.
The Policy
I'm all for Obama's "thread the needle" approach to policy, but moderation is not really in the cards with the American culture these days. As much as the average American is centric/moderate, we as a culture reward Big Plans with Big Visions and Big Solutions. This is why so many embraced the Bush Doctrine of foreign policy even though it's since proven to be a quantifiable foreign policy disaster. We like compromise as a nation, but not at the expense of avoiding the tough choices needed to reform things. Americans like to vote for things that involve no pain, but we also like being told to suck it up and to be tough. The "Public Option" is really a middling policy that isn't really a Big Idea and really doesn't ask us to give much up.
Yet there is a more practical, systemic concern: As much as I think the free market has all but failed America in terms of health care insurance and cost containment, pitting a government plan against private industry is just not the right role for government. Government should not be competing with industry -- ever. It should be enabling economic growth, while protecting the rights of citizens, ensuring fairness, healthy competition, and taking responsibility for the administration of public good works. Under this model of government, health care reform should come in one of two flavors:
1. Go completely single-payer, where we extend the 6% administrative overhead of Medicare to replace the 20-30% overhead of private health care insurance companies. Leverage economies of scale and completely transform our health care system to align with the the notion that our health and well-being is more important than shareholder profits. Single-payer has shown to improve outcomes, life expectancy and costs in many nations already. Yeah, it's got its own problems, but better health care is better health care. And single-payer has proven out to provide better health care on a macro level.
- OR -
2. Play the full regulation card, where the government enforces strict regulations on a completely private health care system. This would keep everything in place as it stands today, but introduce new, tough "rules of the road" that all insurers must abide by, equally. This would include universal access to affordable insurance, no limits on pre-existing conditions, no dropping of coverage, etc. In other words, the government plays the role of citizen advocate and referee, and ensures that the business of health care insurance is more equally balanced between profits and keeping Americans healthy and alive. In addition, the government could and should enforce innovation in automation and administrative cost controls across insurance firms on behalf of citizens. This regulated industry approach has a lot of precedent, and would have the extra-super-double bonus of costing merely a fraction of adding a Public Option to the mix.
Either of these approaches to policy could work, and each has its pros and cons. But at least both of them present a level of policy clarity that people can better understand, contemplate and opine upon. The "Public Option" is so vague and un-descriptive that the idea of "death panels" has risen from the murkiness. It might feel better to blame Sarah Palin (who made Obama's so-called "Death Panels" famous) for derailing the dialog around health care reform, but I'd argue that it's the echo-chamber-policy-wonks who are to blame for poorly naming, positioning and selling health care reform in the name of the "Public Option."
Don't get me wrong -- there are a lot of benefits to the Public Option scheme. It's just that these benefits are not seeing the light of day, in part, due to the issues outlined here.
The best analysis of the heathcare debate, and how Obama got it wrong. He essentially gave up on his base before he started the fight, never a good political move and Rahm should know better:
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Christine_Pelosi_6344F7D1-AA1A-45C5-B09E-67E97B478CB3.html
hey there lefties.
ya know, i read your posts and nate's post about this whole obama surrenders the public option because he's "smart" thing you're trying to say here. I must say your attempts at spinning Obama's woeful inability to manage either Congress or his douchebag nutroot supporters like yourselves is admirable.
False, of course, just like GWB's spin when his major overall (Social Security) was collapsing under its own weight.
As im sure you informed lefties are aware, the WH's new strategy is to "go it alone" without any GOP support - something independents are going to be extraordinarily weary about.
We'll see if you get your 12 and 50, my friends. Expect all of your "probables" to get 100's of thousands of phone calls and millions of letters and emails from moderate and conservative folk in their states.
The only polling around on the "no GOP support option is really, REALLY bad for y'all:
as im sure you're aware
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/18/drudge-democrats-ready-to-go-it-alone-on-obamacare/
Here is a key point we should start making, from Quinnipiac 10 days ago
American voters disapprove 52 - 39 percent of the way President Obama is handling health care, down from 46 - 42 percent approval July 1, with 60 - 34 percent disapproval from independent voters. Voters say 59 - 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357
time to bring this sucker down to 30 percent approval - just 6 points to go. How will the Senate feel biting that bullet? We'll see.
also, you'll see the narrative re "government insurance company = new fannie mae/freddie mac for dems to get huge salaries while not active politicians" (see rahm emanuel, jim johnson, etc)
i really think that will work with teh public. notice how shrill the dems are to get another giant, nationwide corp under govt control that isnt completely broke and has legitimacy - that's the key - now all the center for american progress people can be the execs at the new govt insurance company, with dem politicians on the board cashing in as well.
that's how we'll bring this thing down - and there is absolutely nothing any of your radical leftist smucks can do about it - mainly because its an undeniably true critique that hits on the very recession we're presently in.
1. Go completely single-payer, where we extend the 6% administrative overhead of Medicare to replace the 20-30% overhead of private health care insurance companies. Leverage economies of scale and completely transform our health care system to align with the the notion that our health and well-being is more important than shareholder profits. Single-payer has shown to improve outcomes, life expectancy and costs in many nations already. Yeah, it's got its own problems, but better health care is better health care. And single-payer has proven out to provide better health care on a macro level.
WHY, my radical leftist friends, WHY is it you always forget pragmatism?
You do realize that the other countries can have a SPS that is somewhat passable only because the United States supplies nearly all the innovation in the health care system?
And that innovation drives US exports - and employment - health care is the ONLY sector besides government (americorp and the census) that is still seeing rising employment thru the crisis.
That, my friends, is a strength of the US economy that we should preserve - not meddle with by stripping out the profit motive.
You strip that profit motive, you freeze medical care innovation at 2009 levels and crush US exports of new medical tech and services.
And you crush the intake of foreign patients who come here over time when the US system fails to lead on the newest, cutting edge care - instead, the world's cutting edge remains the same and drags.
That's what you will get, and anyone on here with a lick of sense re the actual business world knows this.
Well my 538 friends,
I've been engaging in defensive rhetoric over the health insurance reform topic. I've been lured into defensive positions by partisan trolls. I've been encouraged to believe that the 'public option' is a dead duck. The media has been covering the hostile town meetings like a shark week snuff film. The increasingly diminished right wing is getting more vociferous and threatening. Yeah, your world is changing; get used to it.
Now, do you wish to be a part of the solution or continue to be the problem? Nothing that is being proposed by the president will impact your benefits. Why do you think that bringing 50 million other people into the health care system will negatively effect you?
A public option is nothing to be afraid of. It should be embraced.
Open up your eyes and ears. Th.is is not a bad thing
Davy sayd:
Now, do you wish to be a part of the solution or continue to be the problem? Nothing that is being proposed by the president will impact your benefits. Why do you think that bringing 50 million other people into the health care system will negatively effect you?
A public option is nothing to be afraid of. It should be embraced.
Open up your eyes and ears. Th.is is not a bad thing
Do you have any substantive analysis to back up your claims about "Nothing that is being proposed by the president will impact your benefits."???
Other than platitudes by your Messiah Barack Hussein Obama? And his "assurances"?
How about dealing in the actual world of fact?
a member of obama's own recovery board speaks the truth this morning:
Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama's health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."
The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.
I can't imagine that even if it's not in the final bill, the Senate won't get to vote on a Public Option. How much support is the co-op idea going to get in the Senate? Any real hope of GOP votes? Genuinely I think reports of the public option's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Walker said
'This is the time where I would like to announce the formation of 538.com's very first pan-contributor political alliance, a motley crew of like-minded right-leaning paragons:
Knights of the New Republic, or K.O.N.R.
Official Soundtrack: "Sheep" by the Housemartins:'
---------------------------
I take it the music reflect that you are all sheep- remember sheep congregate together. I guess its quite cute that you feel you need each other to protect yourselves!
NBC Poll (D)
Approve 51%
Dissaprove 40%
Slip slidin away....
Public option sux balls.
.
Hm. I wonder if more people would support Obama's position on healthcare if they knew what the f**k it was?
Unless he's planning to somehow pull a rabbit out of his hat at the last minute, I'd say he & his Blue Dogs are toast. I've already assembled my own cabinet & Congressional leadership for a new, Leftier regime. Feel free to select your own. We're having a democracy today. One day only!
.
Why would anybody support government control where it was not necessary?? Where there weren't other ways?
If the government decides on care that you don't think is in your best interest, where would you then appeal??
This is a slippery slope. The party in control could decide care based on party affiliation for heaven's sake! Bad news turning life's care over to the feds. Monetary policy, fine. Not med stuff. BAD BAD idea.
TORT REFORM!!
stop the stutter,
Government won't be deciding on your care. Your Doctor will. And the government will not be arguing over who meets the tab, like the insurance companies do.
Anyhoo the NBC/WSJ poll is quite interesting
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/NBC-WSJ_Poll.pdf
In that, certainly my reading of the situation, its not that the plan is in trouble, its that it isn't being sold very well at all.
If I were advising Obama, I would get him in front of a joint session of Congress as soon as possible to really sell the healthcare plan. It just feels like exactly this time last year, when Obama was dipping in the polls, and could use the Convention as a launchpad. He needs exactly that kind of relaunch, in a big deal setting, making sure he ennunciates why this is important, and why all the crucial elements of the plan (including the public option) are important.
I don't think the problem is the plan, I think the problem is how it is being sold.
markymark,
The problem IS the plan. How can you have a health insurance plan that doesn't mention Tort Reform?
It's not an American plan. It's just a Democrat plan. That's why it's a problem to sell.
Agree (and I'm a lawyer) that a tort reform piece would be an added plus to the bill, and might force bi-partisanship.
S_T_S
I am not saying that Tort Reform shouldn't happen. To an extent, a plan that includes regulation of the Health Insurance industry and a Public Option for health care can have anything else thrown in and be acceptable to me.
Still don't get why the left is so hellbent on government option.
stop_the_stutter: Because private industry has proven not to be up to the task. Canceling the insurance of the sick, refusing to cover life saving operations, etc. I find it surprising anyone actually *likes* the current US system.
As it is, health care costs are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. I'd much prefer universal coverage/a single payer system, myself. Just don't like a system with a "financially screwed for life due to disease" category.
Slightly off topic, but this is how you respond to the town hall screamers:
http://tinyurl.com/m5cemo
I wish more of our reps had the backbone of Barney Frank.
K.O.N.R Press Release
8/19/09
9:23PM
President Struggles with Public Option Messaging
- Nigel Viv Pennington, DC Correspondent, K.O.N.R. News
As President Obama prepares to meet with national religious leaders this morning in an effort to promote health care reform it has been learned that this past weekend’s apparent backing away of a mandatory public option by key administration officials has been retracted.
The Obama administration now says it remains fully behind the idea of a "public option" for government-run insurance, this despite clear signals over the weekend from top officials that the public option is not a deal-breaker and is just a "sliver" of the overall reforms it seeks.
“The president’s always been crystal clear about this,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs as he chewed on a handful of antacid tablets. “He was adamantly for the public option before he was ambivalent regarding it. Now he’s just coming full-circle, like he has always planned to do, and is re-stating his clear and unequivocal support for it. Why do you guys keep asking the same questions? Don’t you know the first lady has ripped arms?”
The president planned a breakfast of piping hot flapjacks this morning with key religious leaders. Hired Japanese artisans from Osaka were seen in the White House grounds preparing tasteful origami table decorations for the event.
Never has so much folding been witnessed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
You mean like how he stood up and refused to acknowledge that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were f-ed up and in trouble? Or how he managed to convincingly explain that he didn't know an escort service was being run out of his own house?
The man is a waste of air and is reason number 4 why you should never let the government be in charge of anything.
And the reason that the majority of people in America *like* the current system is that it works for the majority of people. There are ways to reform it, but torpedoing the whole system or inserting a trojan horse "public option ain't it.
Frank is so full of double speak and when he says "People are afraid it will be terrible and people are afraid that it will be so good that everyone will flock to it" (paraphasing), he is being disingenuous as hell. It is not that it would be so great that people will flock to it. It is that it will be cheap, and companies will choose it for their employees.
Why can't it see simple, incremental changes that increase access to care for the 15 million Americans who don't have it, instead of widespread change for a system that works for the other 280 million?
The government screwed up with Fannie and Freddie and even Obama admits the Postal service is run like crap. Throw in the widely derided public school system and you have a blanket of negligence, corruption and inefficiency that really doesn't need to be thrown over the whole country.
I expect that the majority of you stopped reading after I insulted your patron, Barney, and began composing your screeds, so I won't expect a cogent answer.
brown said...
Slightly off topic, but this is how you respond to the town hall screamers: http://tinyurl.com/m5cemo I wish more of our reps had the backbone of Barney Frank.
No one was screaming at Frank. When his constituents challenged his positions, Frank contemptuously dismissed them with such refrains as: "What is wrong with you people?"
I would suggest that the American people have the greater justification to challenge their arrogant representatives with the query: "What is wrong with you people?"
I join you in hoping that more Dem representatives take Frank's contemptuous lead. Frank's put downs and his constituents' reactions have been the featured on Fox News since Frank delivered them. Perfect fodder for the Tea Party movement.
Matt,
So you don't have a problem at all with government intrusion?
If the government decides against a certain treatment that you deem necessary or best for yourself, what then is your recourse?
Government intervention is dangerous when it comes to health care.
I, personally, am very happy with my care. I make 35k a year, my wife about 45k..and we do just fine.
Frank's put downs and his constituents' reactions
Frank wasn't responding to his constituents, he was responding to delusional rightwingnuts.
His comments are directed at the people who come to be heard. Yes, some of them are there simply to disrupt, but most are there to air grievances, be heard and to have their fears eased. To be condescended to and mocked only serves to stoke the anger.
No matter how you want to spin this as being manufactured or fake or funded by evil insurance companies, the fear and anger is very real, and it is fomented by these "public servants" who try to pat us on the head and say "Don't worry, we know what's best."
Distrust of the government is at an all time high. The left and the centrists distrust of the Bush administration, it's policies and the right and the centrists distrust of the Obama administration and the handling of the economy and the national debt over the past six months has amounted to this: universal distrust of the government for many reasons.
The right can't believe that the left is being lead like sheep over the government takeover of 1/5 of the economy, the ballooning of the national debt, and the cap and trade plan.
Don't you see that it the same thing as the left's incredulous reaction to the Bush years. It is the same damn thing. All the far left and far right seem to want is THEIRS. "We had to deal with Bush for 8 years, it's our turn to put the screws to them. It is our turn to put forth our radical agenda." You don't want to be "uniters" any more than Bush did. You mean it like he did "Unite behind my agenda or fuck off!"
The vast majority of the people in this country want to be left with their jobs, their families and whatever meager funds they are able to save INTACT. To push radical agendas in favor of the powerful, whether they be corporations or government, at the expense of the rest of us, to put it frankly, SUCKS.
The anger is real, the Dems and Obama are drawing it now, and as long as they persist in this course of action, deriding the opposition, playing politics with real people's lives, they will continue to do so.
How about a modest series of proposals that don't include government involvement in people's personal lives, adding money to the deficit or sending our brave men and women overseas to fight? Something the whole country can get behind, something that we can be proud of, not something that half the country detests and puts all our futures at risk?
How about a modest series of proposals that don't include government involvement in people's personal lives, adding money to the deficit or sending our brave men and women overseas to fight? Something the whole country can get behind, something that we can be proud of, not something that half the country detests and puts all our futures at risk?
We could put Darth Cheney on trial for war crimes. Judging by his poll numbers that's something almost everyone would support.
All the people on this message board seem to be interested in are pithy little comments and consecension, not substantive debate, or even coming up with a single solitary agenda item that has broad support and won't add another couple trillion to the debt. Partisanship is not leadership.
You guys love flame wars and insults and are about as policy oriented as Ann Coulter and Janeane Garofalo in some sort of Predator-Alien hybrid species.
S_T_S the simple reason for the public option is that is the way you guarantee accesibility into the healthcare system for every American. There is no other way to guarantee it.
Obama should pay for a sixty second commercial during prime time and, after a few words, direct all viewers to whitehouse.gov to simply watch (or re-watch) his primetime "Foundations" speech. The big picture is compelling for health, education, energy independence, and fiscal responsibility. Wouldn't even Fox take the money?
Matt wrote:
"Because private industry has proven not to be up to the task."
And the federal government does such a great job of running things like medicare, Fannie, Freddie, USPS, Cash for Clukers...why not put them in charge of nationalized healthcare?
Lehman, the Dems have won the last 2 elections. They are now advancing policies that they support, and which they believe the people who voted for them support. Were you expecting them to push forward with GOP policies?
The problem is, the people don't support Obama's policies.
The problem is, the people don't support Obama's policies.
They have voted in favor of Dem policies in the last 2 elections.
stop_the_stutter: I certainly trust the government more than insurance companies, given how they've been known to treat people. Also, there's nothing about a single payer system that precludes supplementary insurance coverage for anything the government won't cover. (By single payer, I do not mean government ownership of hospitals, in case that wasn't clear). I don't think many people would choose to do so, however.
But that's where you are inferring the wrong thing from those elections. I have read similar things in other posts, along the lines of "a progressive majority was elected in both houses to pursue a progressive agenda."
I disagree, in that Obama won because the economy tanked and the left-wing had successfully pinned it all on the GOP. Obama won by virtue of the millions of moderates who felt betrayed that Bush came in to be a "uniter, not a divider" or a "compassionate conservative" and was neither. They felt that the governement (personified by Bush, rightly or wrongly) had ridden the economy off of a cliff, and here comes a fresh-faced smooth talking politician with a great story to promuising "transparency, hope and change," a message with resonance, an uplifting "Yes, We Can" tone, to the rescue but offering very few specifics.
If he had run on "Tripling the deficits" "Cap and Trade" "Public Option" "Staying course with Bush's defense policies" he would still be the junior senator from Illinois.
These politicians were not elected to push through a progressive agenda. They may be using the current circumstances to do so, mush like Bush and the GOP did 8 years ago, but they wer ACTUALLY elected to bring a more civil tone to politics (failed), to bring transparency to an opaque system of governemnt (failed) and to be more responsive to their constituents (failed).
To perceive the past 2 elections as mandates for these policies puts you (and Messr's Obama, Pelosi, and Reed) into the same dark territory as the right wingers and Bush, Cheney, Gingrich when they perceived their elections as the same. They were, to varying degrees, hoist on their own petards.
The election of Obama, with his majorities in the house and senate after Bush with his, makes me pine for the days of divided government, where bills actually had to have biartisan support, which meant popular support, and then had to be centrist enough for a President of the other party still had to want to sign them.
I think that if there had been a vote by the American people about "giving a huge majority in both houses of congress and the presidency to the same political party" it would be voted down in resounding fashion.
SO don't read too much into the majorities and treat the current one party rule as a blank check for pursuing a realtively narrow (from a political perspective) agenda, or the Democrat revolution of '06 and '08 could simply be a bump in the road to a GOP hegemony of '10 or '12.
Neither of which is even remotely palatable to me.
Lehman, when people see the actual healthcare plan they support it.
Also, while just 36 percent believe Obama’s efforts to reform the health system are a good idea, that number increases to 53 percent when respondents were read a paragraph describing Obama’s plans.
Maybe you should spend less time listening to the rightwingnut shouters.
I think that if there had been a vote by the American people about "giving a huge majority in both houses of congress and the presidency to the same political party" it would be voted down in resounding fashion.
And yet that is exactly what they did. Do you think that people didn't realize that voting for a Dem for congress and president would result in such a situation?
Grog: Plenty of other countries have managed it quite well, in my opinion. I see no reason the US can't, too.
And again, just to be clear, I'm not for public ownership of hospitals, just a single payer system.
Grog: And one other thing... I can see how someone can not like the current system, but think a government one would be worse. While I think the government could do much better, it's a point of view that makes sense to me. It's just all the praise I've heard from the right of the current system that surprises me.
Howard Dean is now running the country
I wish
WV; What Petekent's/grog's/Bart DePalma's opinions do not.
Actully Grog, if you look at the NBC poll, they do support the policies.
Bartbuster said...
And yet that is exactly what they did. Do you think that people didn't realize that voting for a Dem for congress and president would result in such a situation?
No. Because Obama hid himself under alot of pretty words. He hid his extreme liberalism, called it lies and exaggerations. He played the mainstream left of center politician with a great smile and soaring rhetoric. But when it came down to it, he was just another politician, unmindful of debt beholden to special interests, with crooked cronies and willing to use parliamentary tricks and fast talking to push through an agenda that at least half the American people don't support (at least they stop supporting it once they find ot the nuts and bolts of the plan).
Keep in mind that 50 million people voted against him. Quit thinking "They have to do this now, 'cuz if they don't it will never happen!" and wonder why you think that. If it is a good idea that will benefit Americans, then what's the rush? Substantive debate, including both sides of the argument is they way to alleviate fears and forge consensus. Your (speaking generally, not specifically you) vitriol-filled refusal to see any other point or view, when coupled with your sense of "we won, we're entitled" and your sense of moral and intellectual superiority stops you from seeing the big picture.
If your (the left wing) concepts are sound, then why not start with a pilot program. It it proves to be independently run, economically sound, self-sustaining, reduces costs AND improves care, then the point is proven and expansion will follow. That, to me is win-win, because, if you are wrong, and it stumbles, then we can learn the lessons and make it better. That, to me would be better than jumping in with both feet, starting a government agency from teh ground up with 50 million users. That is a recipe for failure waste abuse and suffering.
Tell me that isn't reasonable.
He hid his extreme liberalism
Like you're trying to hide the fact that you're an extreme rightwing nutcase?
Your (speaking generally, not specifically you) vitriol-filled refusal to see any other point or view
Virtually all the vitriol I have seen has been coming from rightwingnuts like you. The people carrying guns to healthcare debates and screaming at congresscritters are not healthcare supporters, they are rightwingnuts like you.
And frankly, you don't seem to have much to offer beyond the screaming. I'm having trouble finding reasons why we should listen to wingnuts like you.
If your (the left wing) concepts are sound, then why not start with a pilot program
This is a pilot program. It isn't intended to provide insurance for everyone, just the people who don't currently have insurance.
Substantive debate, including both sides of the argument is they way to alleviate fears and forge consensus
That would be great. Unfortunately, all we're seeing from the rightwingnuts is "Obama is an extremist" (or much worse) and "I want my country back".
If you want to be treated with respect, act like you deserve it.
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