Lost amid the attention to the health care bill this week are the ramifications of Tennessee Democratic Congressman Bart Gordon's announcement Monday of his pending retirement. Chris Cilliza and Dan Balz wrote a detailed piece in the Washington Post Tuesday about the larger issue of Democratic retirements and party competitiveness next November that's worth reading.
As I wrote Monday in a guest post over at Salon’s War Room, retirements happen every cycle but mass retirements tend to happen to either (a) when a party is about to suffer major losses, or (b) after a party has suffered major losses and usually its majority. In the first case, retirees want to avoid the pain, hassle and embarrassment of an expected loss, of either their seat or even their role as a majority-caucus member; in the second, survivors, whatever their level of electoral safety, just don't find it as meaningful to be in the minority.
That distinction led me to think about a more general typology for retirement calculus.
In the figure above, looking row-wise, we have the two cycles mentioned above: when a majority-party member anticipates his party is in danger of losing significant seats, perhaps including his/her own, and possibly the chamber majority; and a member of a party that just lost the majority the previous cycle, or very recently.
Column-wise, I have trichotomized members as either representing (1) normally safe seats temporarily in jeopardy because their incumbents, for reasons like scandals, are in specific trouble; (2) swing-district seats that are structurally competitive regardless of incumbent; or (3) safe seats that are safe only because that particular incumbent is popular in what might be an otherwise competitive district. (I've left out retirements in seats that are overwhelmingly tilted toward one party or the other because, in theory, the retirement there should not matter in terms of partisan control.)
OK, for the Democrats, now in power, we are most interested in the top row. And more specifically the DCCC and Chris Van Hollen should be more worried as we move left to right along the three cells.
And it this last category of seats that make Gordon's announcement tough for Democrats, because Gordon is the Democratic equivalent to a Jim Leach. Specifically, he's one of the 49 so-called "McCain Democrats"--that is, Dems representing districts John McCain carried in 2008. McCain's margin was 25 points in Gordon's district. Of the other three announced Democratic retirees, in terms of potential risk of losing the seats, fellow Tennessean John Tanner's districts was carried by McCain by 13 points, KS' Dennis Moore was carried by Barack Obama by just 3 points, and WA's Brian Baird's seat is perhaps the safest for Democrats (Obama +9).
The real worry, as Cilizza and Balz note, is a quartet of southern House Democrats rumored to be pondering retirement--and all four are McCain Democrats. With their McCain margins in parentheses, they are: AR's Marion Berry (+20 for McCain), TX's Chet Edwards (+35), AR's Vic Snyder (+10), and SC's John Spratt (+7). In short, they are four more Bart Gordons in waiting. And that's why Gordon's retirement, if it does open the floodgates and out pour the above, that spells DCCC trouble.
Now, as everybody by now knows, I've made the case for building non-southern majorities. And if I were to be told that those four southern Dems were going to be replaced by four midwestern ones, that would be one thing. But losing seats is still a bad outcome for Democrats, even if they are Blue Dogs who often vote against the Speaker and the President.
**Sorry, thanks to readers I realize I confused my Iowa Jims, and cited Jim Leach (who didn't retire) instead of Jim Nussle (who did) in the top-right box. It doesn't change the general typology, but my sincere apologies for the error. I've written about 25 posts in the last four days for Salon and 538 and, not that that's an excuse, but I guess I'm a bit fried right now.
12.17.2009
A Typology for Congressional Retirements
@ 4:13 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
219 comments
Leach didn't retire, he was retired. He ran for reelection and unexpectedly lost.
I'm pretty sure that Loebsack defeated Leach in the 2006 election, he didn't pick it up in an open race after Leach retired.
I don't think "everyone" knows your view on non-southern majorities Mr. Schaller. Can we get a link?
Does that last sentence have any analysis to back it up?
Just pointing out what others have said. Leach didn't retire, but he ran for re-election and lost in 2006.
Jim NUSSLE retired in 2006 to run for Governor (also a 'Pub from a left-leaning Iowa district), and his seat went to Democrat Bruce Braley.
Nate has actually made a few references on previous threads to his involvement in the campaign to defeat Jim Leach.
@Daniel Kahn
Well it's pretty obviously bad in an election where the opportunity to gain seats is limited in terms of retaining a majority, but it's also not helpful to trade someone who votes with you on 20%-30% of major policy votes for someone who votes with you on 0% of them.
As for non-southern majorities...
We have at least 25 House Democrats in fairly to very vulnerable southern districts. Some of them vote against us pretty regularly, but not all. And as there are about 30 non-southern Democratic seats that could theoretically be in danger in 2010, holding onto popular incumbents should be a priority. Or rather this is not an election for building a non-Southern majority, which is what I think Tom was trying to say in that last sentence.
If the DCCC can find ways of encouraging these southerners to stay one more term then they absolutely should. Meanwhile we need to focus on holding our legislatures.
Then in 2012, we can build more favorable districts where demographics allow for it, and hope that Obama is reelected with coattails in non-southern states and thereby create a more tenable, more cohesive majority. At that point, it might be all right to let some McCain Dems retire and hope for (and fund) tradeoffs elsewhere.
The Tennessee Dems are leaving because they expect their districts to be gerrymandered out of existence after the 2010 census.
That is an important element -- how congressional districts will change after the 2010.
I'm sure Spratt down in South Carolina has to consider how his chances will change once his district changes.
Its only rational.
how did we elect such a weak dude as president?
Based on his track record, when he returns from Copenhagen, I guess Obama puts Exxon Mobile in charge on climate change.
Michael,
The short answer is anger and fear, with a side of white guilt.
So already we're losing the seats of Gordon, Tanner, Moore, and Melancon, possibly Hodes, and will have way to tough a fight for Baird's seat.
If they retire, Edwards', Spratt's, and Berry's seats are gone, and Snyder's is tough.
Couple that with Minnick, Kratovil, and possibly Bright DOA, plus at least a dozen other freshmen that are tossups at best (Griffith, Kirkpatrick, Markey, Kosmas, Grayson, Schauer, Adler, Massa, McMahon, Teague, Kissell, Dahlkemper, Perriello, Nye)...
And some sophomores who are still in dicey situations (Mitchell, Foster, Donnelly, Childers, Shea-Porter, Altmire, Carney, Kagen).
Damn as much as I hate to say it, but there may be a slight chance of losing the House.
Odds are still on a Democratic majority, but if the 'Pubs can take say 80% of the retirements, the easy picks, and the most vulnerable freshmen, plus a couple unpopular elders like Murtha and Kanjorski...they would be only about a dozen lucky breaks short of taking the House. This scenario is looking way too possible right now.
Not that it makes a difference how many Democrats there are in either house. Seriously, they have a crushing majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and they're still too frightened to pass the health-care reform package they were voted in to pass. The Republicans are actively denying global warming while the ice caps melt, still convinced that the President was born in Indonesia, and, after years of profligate deficit spending, complaining about deficits. What are the Democrats doing? After years of giving Bush no opposition whatsoever and actively taking the mantle of "obstructionist," they've won by one of the largest majorities in living memory and still cower in fear of the opposition party that was completely destroyed by voters last November. I don't get it. Republicans barely won in 2004, then claimed a mandate. Democrats won a crushing victory in 2008, and are afraid to do what the voters--the people who actually voted for them, not the morons who bring guns and tea bags to rallies--demanded they do. If you're not spitting mad about this, you need to check your pulse, because you've probably already died.
In re: Shots & Pat
Does anyone else get sick of trolls here acting like a President becoming marginally unpopular 1 year in is out of the ordinary?
I mean do these guys really think that the Far right wing of the Republican party was destroyed in 1984?
It would certainly be nice if we could have a progressive-led government, but I fail to see how a moderate administration losing a little ground will "completely destroy the progressive wing of the Democratic Party."
Even if shots' fantasy world proved to be the case, I doubt the ensuing wars and depressions under far-right leadership would exactly endear the public to the Coolidge/Bush line of thinking.
And Pat, if it comforts you to chalk up the voters' preference for hope over fear to "fear (?), anger, and white guilt" then go ahead, but don't be surprised when fearmongering and racially-tinged campaigns fail yet again.
For the record, we got this dude in office because people wanted rationality, competence, and an agenda not based on fearmongering.
Shots
I think McCain would've been fine. And if Obama wasn't the Dem nominee, McCain would've picked someone besides Palin. Probably Pawlenty.
@Shots
And what are those "obvious reasons?"
@Pat
Probably true. Though one shivers to think of a McCain/Pawlenty administration.
You know what the worst part is? The worst part? You know that the economy is going to pick up early next year and just enough people are going to be employed with health insurance that healthcare reform will no longer be necessary. The Republicans will continue their descent into madness, freaking out moderates enough that the Democrats maintain their majorities, probably by picking up five senate seats and losing three, with similar results (adjusted to scale) for the house. You know this will happen because the Republicans have no platform other than blind opposition to Obama and a fascistic purity checklist. So the Democrats will increase their majorities and still mourn the one or two guys who lose, and healthcare reform will become a non-issue when unemployment is back to around 2%, killing any bill anyone might have considered passing. They'll never fix anything in the long term, because they're deathly afraid of a broken opposition, even though they're safe for any election outside the South. The deficit will turn to a surplus in 2014, just in time for the Democrats to briefly lose the filibuster-proof majority in the elections for that year, because young people won't care enough to vote in support of a lame duck President. And you know all this will happen because it's considered unthinkable by the chattering classes, the same people who said the Republicans would have a permanent majority after the 2004 elections.
Oh, and by the way, Reagan's popularity in December 1981 was around 47%, G.W. Bush was around 90% in December 2001. Clinton was a hated man in 1993. The point is that Obama should be thanking God that his popularity dropped this low so early in his first term, because it virtually guarantees that he'll be almost as actively worshipped by future generations of progressives as Reagan is by conservatives. Let us not forget: Reagan raised taxes in 1982.
@Daniel
Yeah I'm angry too but c'mon it's never been as simple as having "crushing majorities."
The Democratic Party has never been just one party. The Senate caucus for example, is about 30 Progressives/Pseudo-Progressives, 25 or so moderates, a handful of outright conservatives, and one "Screw the Democrats at Any Cost" Independent.
The House, meanwhile, has been able to pass several decent bills such as HCR and Cap and Trade (+ a workable financial reg bill), even with 47 Blue Dogs in the Caucus.
Numbers in the House matter to the extent that we keep something slightly higher than a majority, while the mix of incompetent leadership and waffling ConservaDems in the Senate has doomed the caucus there. Numbers matter a great deal.
Pat said...
Shots
I think McCain would've been fine. And if Obama wasn't the Dem nominee, McCain would've picked someone besides Palin. Probably Pawlenty.
~~~~~~~~~~
McCain picked palin because Obama didn't pick Hillary as v-p ie hoping/praying he could get some PUMA votes. Plus palin is/was good looking, perky and can lie w/a pleasant smile on her face.
McCain needed a game changer er Hail Mary! and mittens, Pawlenty et al didn't fit that scenario.
You bet'cha!
Hey Daniel:
You forgot to tell which year of the Obama Administration that the flying unicorns come around to shit gumballs for all the Democratic children. Jesus, dream on.
__________________________________
You know what the worst part is? The worst part? You know that the economy is going to pick up early next year and just enough people are going to be employed with health insurance that healthcare reform will no longer be necessary. The Republicans will continue their descent into madness, freaking out moderates enough that the Democrats maintain their majorities, probably by picking up five senate seats and losing three, with similar results (adjusted to scale) for the house. You know this will happen because the Republicans have no platform other than blind opposition to Obama and a fascistic purity checklist. So the Democrats will increase their majorities and still mourn the one or two guys who lose, and healthcare reform will become a non-issue when unemployment is back to around 2%, killing any bill anyone might have considered passing. They'll never fix anything in the long term, because they're deathly afraid of a broken opposition, even though they're safe for any election outside the South. The deficit will turn to a surplus in 2014, just in time for the Democrats to briefly lose the filibuster-proof majority in the elections for that year, because young people won't care enough to vote in support of a lame duck President. And you know all this will happen because it's considered unthinkable by the chattering classes, the same people who said the Republicans would have a permanent majority after the 2004 elections.
Daniel said...
"They'll never fix anything in the long term, because they're deathly afraid of a broken opposition, even though they're safe for any election outside the South."
===================================
Nah, it has nothing to do with that at all. Every Dem senator who is an obstacle (Baucus/Conrad/etc.) is in the pocket of the insurance lobby. It's not an coincidence that blanche Lincoln has accepted over $800K in insurance contributions and opposes the public option.
There will be more retirements when the Blue Dog Dems realize that no matter how they vote on the Dem health care bills, they will lose one part of their narrow Dem and conservative Indi majorities in the McCain/Bush districts and states. The recent Terrance Group polling in Nebraska illustrates how toxic the Dem health care bill is to electoral health:
"In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?"
Favor: 26%
Oppose: 67%
"If Senator Ben Nelson votes in favor of this plan, would that make you more likely or less likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?"
More likely: 26%
Less Likely: 61%
Jacob,
I was going to respond. I had about two paragraphs written out. Then I realized...why bother? Nothing I say can convince you of anything, you'll go right on believing Obama = Hope...
@Shots
Who said that Obama is perfect? He has made MANY bad decisions in terms of how to pursue his agenda, and I don't think his Afghanistan strategy is working very well. I'm guessing he'll be a better than average President--not an FDR or a JFK mind you, but certainly not a Carter/Ford and leaps and bounds above a Coolidge/Reagan.
You make some reasonable points (and my wars/depressions line was absolutely hyperbole), but classifying all of your opponents as sycophants of your object of loathing is just wishful thinking.
My larger point though was that classifying the very normal drop in popularity of a President as the death-knell of his party is patently absurd, and particularly so when you're talking about a DIFFERENT wing of his party collapsing. Or a groups like the far left that has NEVER been in power in this country.
I'm curious though, how you think the "laxing of our moral rectitude" (nice phrasing BTW) has led to economic decline. What exactly do you mean by that?
Collective failure of the citizenry I'll buy, but obviously you can't ignore the collective failure of business to self-regulate and the collective failure of conservatives (and too many bought and paid for Democrats) to support necessary regulations.
BWHWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHH!
that's some poll you got Bart.
Q1 "In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan kills puppies?"
Q2 If Senator Nelson votes for Obama's kill the puppies plan...
poor, poor disturbed bart, I had no idea last year's rejection was so devastating. But yeah, losing solid teabagger states like Indiana, Virgina, and North Carolina was a doozy. Glenn Beck called, he says you need to up you antidepressants.
No Pat, I don't believe Obama=hope, so please do respond (if in fact you had a real response and not just that casual dismissal). Nor has he been particularly competent lately, but I was responding to your assertion that he won based on "fear and white guilt," which is absolutely baseless.
Obama ran on a CAMPAIGN of hope, competence, and a rational approach to governance, and he did so well enough that 53% of voters elected him. He is doing all right in some areas so far, but he certainly hasn't lived up to that promise.
Also, there is a peculiar pathology among Republicans where they assume that when they win elections, it's a matter of course; but when they lose, then voters are either punishing them for not following their conservative principles or taken in by a shyster Democratic campaign. I think it never occurs to these people that voters will vote Democratic because they like their ideas better, or because the Republicans have been failures, rather than not conservative enough.
I'm not saying that you're guilty of such a belief, but it fits into your "fear and white guilt" dismissal, and echoes what many Republicans believe.
Also, like Shots, you seem to believe that anyone who does not constantly trash the President is a sycophant who approves of anything he does.
So let me ask you this, do you believe that Boy George was the Perfect President and could do know wrong? If not, you might want to consider--just CONSIDER--that not everyone on the left or center is madly enamored of everything Obama does.
Jacob,
Obama's had a 20 point decline in his approval rating in his first year in office.
Since Truman, only Gerald Ford has had the same rapid decline.
Obama didn't win based on "Hope and Competence." He won the Democratic Primary based on the fact he ran to the left of Hillary, and the Progressives were still royally POed about Iraq, so supported him in droves there. The Block voting of African Americans in the primary for him didn't hurt either. Anger at Iraq drove "Progressives" to Obama.
He then managed to win the General Election because the economy nearly collapsed 2 months before that election. Fear about the economy drove voters to Obama.
Add on some White Guilt from the Media gushing at the "First Black President"....and you have the makings of a winner, even if the guy has virtually no experience.
Bushy Boy wasn't good either. Of course, I didn't vote for him either, realizing both the bores of Gore and Kerry were better.
"Progressives" were taken in by the charisma of Obama in a public setting and the desperate need to "Hope" for something better...and willing to believe in Obama even if the evidence... A history of broken promises, little experiences, and jaded ex-supporters...showed that it wasn't gonna happen with Obama.
And now, that shattered Hope the progressives had in Obama, and Obama's own poor legistlative and executive skills are looking to shatter the "progressive" movement.
@Shots
Fair enough. That though is a symptom of our peculiar sort of strong presidency system (peculiar for generally functional democracies that is), rather than a symptom of any particular political persuasion.
There are at least as many on the right and far right who will say with great fervor that Reagan was the epitome of modern Presidents and a few (God help them) who would say the same of Boy George. (The left incidentally is starting to hate Obama, which is interesting in itself, and the far left never really liked him).
But in general, hyperbole will be fought with hyperbole, and people who generally approve of the President (like me in this case) will sometimes make an overzealous defense in the face of unmitigated slander and character assassination.
Pat's statement though, seemed more of an excuse to ignore criticism of what was a strange and lavishly false assertion.
Bushy Boy wasn't good either. Of course, I didn't vote for him either, realizing both the bores of Gore and Kerry were better.
====================
Just priceless.
Nobody wants to be associated with Bush.
No one will admit to being a bush voter.
It's like Nixon -- no one will admit to voting for tricky dick.
Al Franken for GOD!
Franken denies the Lieberman lizard the Senate floor to spread his assinine lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUEypqnjufw
@Pat
Nice oversimplification, but elections are decided by the overriding themes as much as the moment-to-moment issues.
Need I remind you that Obama led from May to September, pulled back to even after two weeks or so of McCain leading (before the official collapse), and led from thereon?
So basically the points you make are:
Obama started his term out with very high approval and that has receded to average levels.
Obama ran a smarter campaign than Clinton and formed a more effective primary coalition based on issues Democratic voters cared about.
Obama outran McCain on the economy (though I can't agree that it was just fear--Obama had been talking about the economy from day 1, McCain and Co. royally mismanaged his race, and Obama made workable promises to address real economic issues--more of "Nothing to fear but fear itself" than Bush-Cheney style "vote for us or die).
Obama had an effective media strategy (the "race card" that Republicans keep throwing out is and always has been false).
Add in of course that he had a strong message and a cool temperament and you have a winner. Though he has been lacking in some ways, he's doggedly following through on the items for which he campaigned (though not successfully in most cases as per ususal). Sorry to disappoint you, but the Progressive Movement and the fight for a better future isn't going anywhere, even if the President hasn't been what we hoped for.
Interesting though that you site the experience factor. The "very experienced" Presidents like Bush Sr, Buchanan, Coolidge, both Johnsons, JQ Adams, Hayes, Van Buren, Tyler, etc have generally not proven to be the most able statesmen, while the Wilsons, Lincolns, Roosevelts, Reagans, and the like have been treated far more kindly by history. Just a thought.
In fact, an "inexperienced" candidate winning is not at all unusual in the modern era: in the last 9 elections, the candidate who had spent the fewest total years in elected office won every single Presidential election.
@Shots:
Who said that Obama is perfect?
Although you may not, some on your or that side essentially do. I think this is a case where sweeping generalizations get us in trouble.
Well, since you didn't answer the question (i.e., you couldn't name anyone or quote anyone who ("essentially") said that Obama was perfect, this is quite clearly a case where sweeping generalizations got you into trouble.
You can claim to be all reasonable and fair, butt when your arguments consist of bogus generalizations with no basis in fact, you can be safely ignored.
@Pat:
...Obama didn't win based on "Hope and Competence." He won the Democratic Primary based on the fact he ran to the left of Hillary...
Okay, I can stop reading right there, because that is a stinking pile of carpoola.
Hillary's health insurance plan was to the left of Obama's. On the Iraq War, Obama pointed to his opposition, which arguably placed him to the left of Hillary. So, on the two major issues of the campaign, the two candidates were very similar on the ideological spectrum.
Had he been some leftist ideologue, he probably couldn't have been elected president. He ran as a principled pragmatist. And he won because people (Dems, Indies, and some Republicans) believed in him.
I don't know about anyone else but the sole reason I voted for Obama in the primaries was that I didn't want Hillary Clinton to win because I don't believe that immediate family of former Presidents should run, and he was the only other realistic option at that point.
I will say this, however - I don't think anyone thinks Obama is perfect. However, I certainly think he has been miles better than McCain would have been. I certainly do not feel the slightest bit of voter's remorse.
That's a great clip, Henry!
Thanks, I got a big kick outta it.
Jacob,
"Obama started his term out with very high approval and that has receded to average levels"
No...I didn't say that.
Let's put hard numbers on this, shall we?
The First term approval numbers of all presidents after Truman. First number is at start, the second number is at 1 year in The numbers are Gallup.
Eisenhower:70-65
Kennedy:72-78
LBJ: 75-72
Nixon: 62-63
Ford: 59-39
Carter: 68-58
Reagan: 60-55
Bush I: 57-72
Clinton: 55-50
Bush II: 58-80
Obama: 68-48.
So, what we see here is Obama isn't unusually high to start with. Out of 11 Presidents, he's tied for 4th with Carter. He then drops to second to last after less than a year, with only the unelected Ford beating him.
Or put another way. Obama starts about 4 points above average, then drops to 14 points below average after a year.
Ah fair enough Pat, that is a bigger than average dip for this point, right you are.
Though it will be interesting to see how Obama fares as the midterms gear up. Out of recent first-term midterms, and how the Democrats rebound.
Another note on recent midterms though: The two-termers (Reagan and Clinton) have tended to have horrible first midterms (Bush riding the 9/11 wave may be an outlier there), while the one-termers (Bush and Carter) managed to hold relatively stable caucuses in Congress (Ford being the exception as the midterm came 3 months into his presidency and 2 months after pardoning Nixon).
In fact, Bush I was very popular throughout all but the tail end of his term, while Clinton seemed doomed to failure almost out of the gate (and Reagan in '82-'83). Makes you wonder how much polls tell us.
Pat,
dude, you can't win them all.
The five stages of grief are: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Accetance.
It's been a year and you're still stuck on anger.
Man, you got a lot ways to go.
such anger and bitterness over last year's rejection at the ballot box rejection is unhealthy. You clearly need to see a shrink.
Obama won because McCain was a god awful candidate who picked a prom queen as his running mate, which basically was his 1st pre-presidential decision and Obama had the money advantage by a wide margin. Which is a 180 from previous elections when the Dems, as a rule, had the god awful nominee and Reps always had the money advantage.
Plus after 8 years of cheney/bush, Rove/Rep scorched earth tactics of hate and fear was moot.
Again, presidential politics is not all that complicated as the only unknown factor was the Bradley Effect, the Reps only hope!
Many, if not most times presidential elections come down to the lesser of (2) evils, the devil you know vs the devil you don't know, plus a wartime incumbent has never lost re-election.
adding previous presidential job approval poll #s are meaningless as American politics is totally different nowadays compared to the '50s. Bi-Partisanship is a relic of the past.
Just a note on JFK, Reagan and Bush43:
Bay of Pigs ~ April 1961 spiked JFK's #s
Reagan shot ~ March 1981 spiked Reagan's #s
9/11 ~ Sept. 2001 created the Bush anomaly
ie during crisis situations, even if it was the president's fault, the country always rallies around the C-in-C and their #s always go up.
Understanding the why's and wherefore's is always helpful in political analysis ie if McCain was president today his #s would be the same, if not worse than Obama imo.
No easy fixes to the plethora of America's major problems after the damage of the previous administration.
and no, Obama did not get many, if any guilt votes because he was African/American, what his advantage was was increased voter registration nationwide, IN, VA, CO, NC, FL, OH etc. which is why he defeated Hillary ie he had a campaign plan ;) which didn't end on Super Tuesday! er Organization vs Hillary's wing and a prayer.
Obama had 44 campaign offices in Indiana, McCain had zero.
'nuf said!
Great points Shiloh, though I don't think those artificial spikes apply in all cases:
Reagan was shot in March--you don't get an 8-month bump from an assassination attempt.
The Bay of Pigs fiasco was horrible for Kennedy and gave him political problems. It was the Cuban Missile Crisis in October '62 that spiked his popularity, and partially allowed the Democrats to break even in the midterms that year.
That said, Boy George was certainly an anomaly, and any Republican who believes that Obama's win in '08 was just luck or white guilt or some freak occurrence is living in a fantasy world. That's OK though; they can stay there.
Perhaps Pat could post the comparative poll numbers for all the presidents who during their first year in office have been required to deal with the worst recession since 1930.
Oh wait... there's only been one of those, right?
Bush won in 2004 'cause Rove registered 300/400k more new voters in OH and FL and of course was very efficient at getting out the Rep vote w/the power of incumbency.
That was Rove's genius voter registration and voter turnout and apparently Obama was taking notes! :)
Having said that, a viable/slightly efficient Dem nominee other than god awful Kerry could have won Ohio, but not to be ...
btw, when Kerry went on his goose hunting expedition in Ohio Oct. 2004 knew he was toast lol plus Ohio's Sec of State Ken Blackwell's voter disenfranchisement of minorities, oh the irony. And the Gay marriage hate issue on the ballot.
did I mention Kerry was a god awful candidate!
Shiloh,
Don't forget, Bin Laden came back right before the election to help out his buddy Bush. That's the least Bin Laden could do, seeing how Bush let him get away in 2001.
Jenny said...
~~~~~~~~~~~
True, they made a great team as hate and fear tactics usually helps an incumbent.
In the final analysis Bin Laden was the best thing that ever happened to cheney/bush as he was Reagan/Bush41's buddy during the Soviet Union/Afghanistan war as was Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's.
and the band played on ...
A few notes...
The Bay of Pigs didn't really hurt Kennedy at all. The leadup to the Cuban Missile Crisis hurt a little, but he did spike 10 points after it.
Reagan does appear to have gotten a slight (2 point) bump from the assassination, which then proceeded to drop 7 points at the end of the year..(and further after that).
Bush II did certainly get boosted by Sept. 11th
Bush I does remarkably well though...likely due to the Berlin wall falling.
Lastly, any "Democrat" who can't admit the one of the MAIN reasons for Obama's win was the "Luck" of having the economy near meltdown 2 months before the general election is living in fantasy world.
In the words of Billy Clinton: "It's the economy, Stupid"
You could've run Mondale and won if you have an economic near collapse right before the election.
@Shiloh
And yet God-awful candidate Kerry was almost President. Shows what an awful candidate Boy George was: he became President in 2 of maybe the eight closest elections in history and had to close the deal with manipulation and vote-rigging both times, and still managed to blow the next election for his successor.
@Pat
And yet Obama led before the collapse. I'll agree that without it, he probably would have lost IN, NC, maybe even FL or OH. And of course it brought maybe a dozen Democrats to the House and 3 or 4 to the Senate.
But do you really live in a fantasy world where McCain would have won absent the collapse? (The economy BTW was not in great shape before the collapse either)
Of course Obama is CERTAINLY lucky it didn't happen after the election, or the teabaggers would be blaming him for it now (some already do I suppose).
And Walter Mondale, while not a winner, is perhaps the last genuinely good human being to be nominated for the Presidency. That's something remarkable in itself.
Pat said...
A few notes...
The Bay of Pigs didn't really hurt Kennedy at all.
~~~~~~~~~~
Said the Bay of Pigs improved JFK's #s as it was comparable to Reagan's Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing in 1983 when both presidents took total responsibility for their folly and their #s improved.
A few notes...
~~~~~~~~~~
Macaca Allen grasped defeat from the jaws of victory by opening his mouth in 2006 as did Elizabeth Dole in NC by running an inane/inept campaign ad against Kay Hagan, so no, victory is never inevitable regardless of the circumstances.
War hero, national security expert McCain was running against a young, inexperienced, bi-racial, Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Islamo-Fascist, wealth distributor, Satan, The Anti-Christ, Muslim born in Kenya who pals around w/terrorists. An African/American candidate for president in a country which has a 300/400 year history of racial oppression who was behind in the polls 'til McCain said the economy was fundamentally strong as the economy was collapsing and he suspended his campaign to hurry back to Washington to save the day. Acting totally incoherent.
And then his beauty queen started to be interviewed and it was Katy bar the door.
So true, McCain was no challenge as it turned out ~ Obama's only obstacle was the unbeatable Clinton machine!
btw, Rep political experts were absolutely positive Clinton was DOA after his and Hillary's 60 minutes interview Jan 1992 and even w/Carter's high inflation, high energy cost problems and the Iran hostage crisis he was ahead of Reagan in the polls Nov 1980, a few days before the election:
Nov 1980, Gallup Pre-Election Poll
Carter 44%
Reagan 41%
Final Results
Reagan 50.7%
Carter 41.0%
The only time Carter and Reagan debated was Oct. 28, 1980 which was Reagan's only opportunity to pass the C-in-C test which proved how hard it is to beat even a weak incumbent president.
Although incumbent Bush41 getting 37.4% in 1992 was an astounding achievement! ;)
So I would posit Obama showed wayyy more leadership than McCain's haphazard, totally discombobulated campaign and yes the economy tanking sealed the deal.
A vote for president is a personal vote and persona counts for a lot ie Obama's intelligence/composure under pressure/energy/common sense helped him earn the voter's trust and was in stark contrast to McCain.
Obama was calm, prepared, presidential and likable in the debates ~ McCain, not so much.
"And then his beauty queen started to be interviewed and it was Katy bar the door."
ROFLOL!
This clip has nearly 4 million hits, it's the funniest god damn moment of the campaign!
youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc
Wow...
The Republicans in the Senate have announced that they will filibuster funding for the troops just to delay a vote on health care reform.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703585.html?hpid=topnews
Abandoning our troops in order to keep the health care system in disrepair...How does this party have ANY support?
"War hero, national security expert McCain..."
Oddly enough, the last 5 elections have featured a veteran against a candidate who never served in the military or was a suspected draft dodger.
And wouldn't you know it if the non-military candidate won every time.
Every one of those elections featured one candidate who had been on the national scene for decades and one who was a relative newcomer.
Guess who won every time?
Maybe insider war heroes make good Presidents, but they sure as hell don't make good candidates. Or maybe Americans just like a fresh face now and then.
Jacob,
the republicans are tone deaf.
a year ago they voted against the GI Bill.
just a month ago, 30 of the 40 senators voted against an anti-rape bill. now, they're kicking themselves over the vote.
now they're essentially going to be voting against provisions for troops stuck in combat.
@Jenny
Yeah that vote on the Franken Amendment was shocking. Other than the 6 pseudo-conscientious/process hawks and of course the 4 women, every Republican voted no. Even John McCain. If the Republican Party had any scrap of a soul left it died that day.
Gotta love Al Franken though. He was a terrible candidate but damn is he a great Senator. A point of pride for Minnesota who would make Paul Wellstone proud.
So, we're sitting here 11 months before the midterms. A month is a lifetime in national politics.
We have one of the most brilliant campaigners in modern history in the White House. The stakes in the Congressional elections next year are nearly as high as they were last year. I expect Obama to campaign hard, and I expect it to be effective.
The economy is going to come back, strong. Gitmo will be closed. DADT will be repealed (and perhaps DOMA too). Iraq will be winding own bigtime. We'll have cap-and-trade passed, and financial reform, and (despite the noise) health care reform, not to mention immigration reform. And that's just the big stuff.
And the Party of No! will have to deal with the teabaggers running their own candidates in half of the Republican districts. Remember how that worked in NY-23? Where the Republicans lost a seat they've held since 1850?
Republicans will still run Be Scared! Oooo! Socialism! Birthers! Scary scary scary! And the Dems will have Obama's preternatural calm and quiet confidence on their side, plus a proven track record of moving forward, plus what will then be hundreds of thousands of new jobs every month.
I expect the Dems to pick up maybe a dozen seats in the House, perhaps 1 or 2 more Senate seats. It will be fin watching the Republicans implode more.
I certainly do not feel the slightest bit of voter's remorse.
Same.
@Jenny
the republicans are tone deaf.
This is the stuff that is going to hand the Dems more big wins next year. The Republicans can't help themselves. They have nothing, no ideas, no plans, no hope, no programs, no platform -- all they have is No! No! No! and the voters are tired of it.
When campaign season starts, the Republicans will be all attack, all the time -- all fear, all hate, racism, jingoism, division, obstruction. They'll have a record of losses in Congress, of simply being irrelevant as the Dems move forward with passing the agenda the public wants.
In December of 2007, no one predicted the massive victories the Dems gained only 11 months later. It'll happen again, because the basic underlying dynamic hasn't changed -- except that the Republicans now have even less of a coherent message, and the Dems will have a proven track record of doing the people's business.
I'm buying lots of popcorn.
Jacob,
I didn't know Al a bad candidate -- how so?
unfortunately I gotta disagree there SHRINKERS
2010 will not be pretty. the electorate will still be in a bad punishing mood no matter what
they will take their low-info wrath out on INCUMBENTS
and unfortunately with more DEM seats at risk in both the house & senate in an mid-term cycle - well, the #'s favor a considerable shift to the right due to gravity alone...
the only wild card is IF the teabagger's sandbag & kneecap the GOP
THEN perhaps no big swings - but really the best one can reasonably HOPE for is in the range of -3 senate seats and -20-25 house seats
also the newly energized expanded DEM base does not have BUSH to kick around anymore [he has been
extremely wise to lay low btw]
plus the DEM base has exhaled & lost the big MO... especially the 'utes' [youth vote]
2010 will result in another LONG bitter election cycle that will further poison the well & drive UP dissatisfaction with DC while driving down turn-out = better for the CONs in most aspects
and still waiting to see IF SCOTUS further poisons the well next year by changing the campaign finance system to open the special interest floodgates even further... [you gotta know that Scalia & his lapdog Thomas are licking their lips in anticipation of proving they are really ACTIVIST judges when they wannabe]
shrinkers said:
I expect the Dems to pick up maybe a dozen seats in the House, perhaps 1 or 2 more Senate seats. It will be fin watching the Republicans implode more.
Commnenters like shrinkers is why I like this site so much. Every topic on this site immediately turns to Republican bashing, yet they accuse the Republicans of having no ideas.
The tell tale sign of having no ideas is when you have nothing to say except "teabagger, pary of no, teabagger, Palin's dumb, teabagger, Rush is fat, teabagger...." It's hilarious.
The fact is that the Democrats have ONE solution to every problem; to increase the already massive size of the Federal Government until the government is involved in every aspect of our lives. From HCR to the global warming hoax, everything the Dems stand for comes down to bigger government and more control over people's lives. It's the only idea they have.
The liberal commenters on this site whine and cry if someone protests or if Republicans say "no" to these disasterous, montorous expansions of government. It'spriceless.
Wow Shrinkers, if Gibbs ever quits, you should run for press secretary. You can always see a positive spin for the Libs. Keep up your "hope" for the "change".
No party in charge at 10% unemployment is picking up seats. The bad economy givith....then taketh away.
The structure of Dem House districts makes them either very liberal or basically moderate. Right now, Dems hold essentially all the moderate districts plus a bunch that lean Repub.
I went through every district and found 90+ that a Dem holds that either has a Repub Partisan rank or is <5 Dem lean. I gotta believe many of these will revert to the Repubs this cycle, given bad economy/unpopular HCR/low voter turnout.
Bart DePalma said...The recent Terrance Group polling in Nebraska illustrates how toxic the Dem health care bill is to electoral health:
"In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan increases the role of the federal government in health care and increases the cost of the deficit?"
Favor: 26%
Oppose: 67%
"If Senator Ben Nelson votes in favor of this plan, would that make you more likely or less likely to support Senator Nelson when he runs for re-election?"
More likely: 26%
Less Likely: 61%
Jenny said... BWHWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHH! that's some poll you got Bart.
Q1 "In general, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s plan to expand health care coverage to most Americans even if this plan kills puppies?"
Q2 If Senator Nelson votes for Obama's kill the puppies plan...
The Obamacare plan to increase the role of the federal government in health care and increase the cost of the deficit = killing puppies?
While I think that Obamacare ranks down there with killing puppies, I am surprised that you think so.
@DCM in FL
also the newly energized expanded DEM base does not have BUSH to kick around anymore [he has been extremely wise to lay low btw]
OTOH, Cheney has proven incapable of keeping his mouth shut. I expect he'll crawl out of his hole several times, growl his nastiness, and provide voters with reminders of everything they don't like about the Republicans. He'll wind up providing the meme, "Vote for Repubs. and you'll get a return to the Dark Ages of Bush & Cheney".
As for the low-info voters -- they generally vote Repub anyway. Obama proved masterful at combating the propaganda machine when he was on the campaign trail -- remember how effectively he handled the Wright thing? I'm convinced 2010 will turn out much better than people expect.
@GROG
The fact is that the Democrats have ONE solution to every problem; to increase the already massive size of the Federal Government until the government is involved in every aspect of our lives.
Yes, and the Repubs want government to be small enough to fit in your bedroom. Spare us the propaganda.
Recall that the biggest expansion of federal government in history happened during the 8 years of the Republican Bush Administration and Republican control of Congress. So no one's buying that line anymore.
As usual with Repubs, the destructiveness of their dishonest propaganda is exceeded only by their ruinous policies.
@Jenny
I didn't know Al a bad candidate -- how so?
He was so bad, he beat Norm Coleman.
Actually, he should have been able to win in a landslide, and he only squeaked in. But he'd never run for any office before, so I think he did pretty good.
Part of his problem was that he didn't know how to be a politician. He wanted to shed the image of a caustic comedian, and in doing so he went pretty far the other way, and looked like a boring policy wonk (which he is, except for the boring part). He couldn't quite find the balance between a serious and scholarly thinker and a guy you'd want to have a beer with.
But he was good enough to beat Coleman, and that's what counts. Plus, he's a great senator.
shrinkers, you're a good man. You're patient and reasonable and far-seeing.
A good thing, because I'm getting so outraged these days, I really need a steadying influence from somebody.
This Republican mindset is so ODIOUS. Beat your dog half to death, pour gas on hims and set him on fire, pull him behind your truck for a few miles... and then half a year later, bitch and complain loudly that the veterinarian should lose his license because your dog still isn't looking as good as he used to!
Why are Republicans not cowering in utter shame at what they've done to the country! Why does nobody ever even mention that stupid, useless, criminal trillion dollar war that would have paid for health care with money left over for a thousand new schools?
All you smug righties on here... tell me why the whole country shouldn't despise you for what you supported and facilitated during the past decade.
Boy.... that felt good.
filistro:
1) The Iraq War cost around $640B over 6 years during the Bush Administration. This was more than paid for by the increase in tax revenues after the 2003 marginal tax rate reductions.
2) We do not need a thousand new schools. Indeed, we are closing schools out here in CO because the boomers' kids have passed through.
3) The mortgage meltdown was caused by:
a) The Boston Fed in 1993 issuing guidance to home mortgage enders under express threat of lawsuit to lower their underwriting standards to meet CRA goals. During the Bush Administration, the Boston Fed President became the Freddie Mac President and made millions buying junk CRA mortgages.
b) Amending the Community Reinvestment Act in 1994 to require increased home mortgage loans to the poor before a bank could merge.
c) HUD in 1997 enacted regulations requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to create a secondary market to buy CRA junk mortgages and make these toxic assets 50% of their portfolios. The Bush HUD raised this to 56%.
d) The Bush Administration in 2003 sought to reform Freddie and Fannie, but backed down under threat of a Dem Senate filibuster.
e) McCain in 2006 again sought to reform Freddie and Fannie, but the bill dies in committee under threat of a Dem Senate filibuster.
f) The CRA junk mortgages started to default in 2006 and the housing bubble burst six months later, leaving us where we are today.
g) After taking power, the Dems in Congress are again pushing legislation to extend even more home mortgage loans to the non-creditworthy.
Recounting this disastrous attempt to socialize the housing market makes me feel sick - not good.
Ah, Bart, the banking and financial deregulation that the Republicans pushed for had nothing to do with it, huh?
See, filistro? They don't cower in shame because they still blame President Clinton and the Congressional Dems. And on the things they can't deny were Bush's fault, they tell us Bush was really a closet RINO, and his problem was that he wasn't conservative enough.
That's so typical of the smugness, Bart.
"The war only cost $640B, not $1T! And our policies covered it!"
"Schools here in CO are closing! We don't need new schools!"
Tell that one to the poor inner city kids whose schools are infested with cockroaches and lethal mold. Oh wait... out of sight, out of mind. Right, Bart?
As for all this claptrap about the financial meltdown being caused solely by poor families buying into Bush's dream of "the ownership society"... tell that to the dittoheads.
All you guys talk of our hate, then you rip off demagougic posts filled with "beat a dog to death" and almost no actual facts.
Sorry your Marxist utopia is crashing. I hope spouting the hate makes you feel better.
And another thing while I'm venting... it's great to live, even part-time, in a country that's a bit more evolved.
Note that, because this is Canada, Mr St Pierre is NOT MP Brison's "partner." He is his legal spouse.
Oh, now brian... brian!... talks about "spouting hate."
Oh, that's rich.
I think I'll make today my "say what I really think" day.
Wow,
So despite being challenged to do so, no Republicans here have put forward any ideas. They bitch and moan that Democrats have no ideas and then go on to bash Democratic ideas.
And what ideas have the national party put forward in just one short year?
No! on stimulative spending
No! on working class tax credits
No! on health coverage for the working class
No! on incrementalist market-based regulation of carbon emissions
No! on allowing rape and discrimination victims to sue their negligent employers
No! on adequate funding for our troops
No! on repealing discriminatory hiring practices in the military
No! on basic oversight of the people who got us into this mess
Do any Republicans really believe the above agenda is a recipe for electoral success?
Blogger Jenny said...
"I didn't know Al a bad candidate -- how so?"
Several reasons--when he tried to be serious, he was dry and uninteresting, when he tried to be funny he was not taken seriously
He had no discernable media strategy, and no way to market how he would be an effective Senator
Minnesotans in 2008 HATED Coleman, and any other Democrat would have won in a landslide, but Al didn't know how to respond to attacks, so his negatives drove up too, and in fact Coleman had a consistent lead up to the last few weeks
Ultimately the end of the race became a negative ad war that destroyed both candidates, causing 16% of voters to flock to even weaker 3rd party candidates
At the election and during the endless recount, people hated Al Franken, but fortunately they hated Coleman just a little bit more
Having worked endless days and hours knocking on doors, planning strategy, observing the recount etc, a lot of us thought there was no way a guy this inept could have been worth this much effort to elect
But fortunately Al proved us wrong. He has been outstanding so far.
And Dems are the party of YES
Yes--to bank bailouts
Yes---to auto bailouts
Yes---to insurance company bailout called HCR
Yes--to rehiring Ben Bernanke in spite of his being wrong on everything
Yes---to giving terrorists special rights
Btw, polls show voters are against ALL of these. Its amazing, the Dems are against public opinion on nearly every issue.
Do any Republicans really believe the above agenda is a recipe for electoral success?
See? It's going to be easy for the Dems to come up with a winning strategy in 2010. The Repubs still have the same playbook they took into '08, except now it is hobbled by the teabaggers hitting them from the far far far right. The Repub's only issues are "Cut taxes!" and and "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" How well did that work last time?
Well, they've added "Say NO! to everything!" during an era when America wants change. That won't be terribly popular.
Brian: Yes--to bank bailouts
Yes---to auto bailouts
Yes---to insurance company bailout called HCR
Yes--to rehiring Ben Bernanke in spite of his being wrong on everything
Yes---to giving terrorists special rig
It's sweet of you, hon, trying to cheer me up by making me laugh this hard. "Yes to bank bailouts" LOLOLO.... oh, you guys are a riot...
But I'm still pissed. Tell me another joke.
Filistro,
I understand that you guys are pissed off about it, but you always forget to mention that the U.S. had no terrorists attacks against us under Bush's watch after 9/11. The cost in both lives and economy would have been disasterous if we had continued the liberal Clinton policy of burying our heads in the sand and pretending terrorism was not a threat.
Yeah, brian, the Dems said Yes to actually pulling the economy back from the cliff that the Republicans were hell-bent on driving over. And they said yes to putting us back under the rule of law and banning torture.
And y'know, sometimes governing is not about polls.
But yeah, when you structure a push-poll and give it to low-info Fixed Noise watchers, you get some crazy results, don't'cha?
"The cost in both lives and economy would have been disasterous if we had continued the liberal Clinton policy of burying our heads in the sand and pretending terrorism was not a threat."
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Well wait, that would be funny except that some people actually believe that tripe. Although if you replace "liberal Clinton" (which is an oxymoron anyway) with "far-right Bush," you might have something resembling reality.
but you always forget to mention that the U.S. had no terrorists attacks against us under Bush's watch after 9/11.
Only on planet Wingnut. In the real world there have been daily terrorist attacks against us (see Iraq Disaster for details).
Very nice Brian. Yes, leadership sometimes requires doing things that are unpopular. That's why it's called "leadership" and not "followership" or "saying No! to everything."
If we had let the auto industry collapse and allowed millions more workers to fall into unemployment, if we had let the banks collapse and credit lines became not just difficult but NONEXISTENT (and of course requiring far more account bailouts by the FDIC), can you imagine what the economy would look like now?
And if you're saying that 'Pubs like you wouldn't attack Obama if he had been fiddling while America burned (pulling a Bush), you are living in a fantasy world.
GROG... you guys always forget to mention that the most devastating terrorist attack on any nation, ever in history, came to the US on Bush's watch.
And then, to conceal the fact that a Republican administration so dismally failed the nation it was supposed to protect, the Bushy-Cheneys (in the words of the unspeakable Michael Ledeen) decided to "pick up some crappy little country and throw it against the wall just to show they mean business."
How you have the chutzpah to bring this up as somehow being a PLUS for your side is beyond me.
Seriously, your collective cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling. It really is.
Do I need to break out Congress' vote on TARP? WAY more Dems supported it. Yes, I know Bush did...but we all know he was a fiscal liberal.
I realize you don't want to be poll-driven, but it seems every issue Dem party is against the people. Gay marriage....people vote against. Dem party response...."damnit, the courts will make them want it". HCR reform is tried over and over and fails---so instead of coming up with new ideas, Dems force the same old ones.
Blogger brian said...
"Yes---to giving terrorists special rights"
Sorry meant to respond to this before--the idea that you consider legal rights for groups you don't like to be "special rights" is absolutely sickening.
I mean I guess I can understand why someone might think there are crimes awful enough that the alleged perpetrator doesn't deserve the rule of law--but that is the worst sort of slippery slope.
If you think the Constitution is a "special right" for some groups, then pretty soon it won't guarantee rights for anyone.
The KSM trial however will not be allowed to end with a not guilty verdict, or so the AG has said. So even your argument about giving terrorists the rule of law is bunk.
brian
Do I need to break out Congress' vote on TARP? WAY more Dems supported it.
That's right, brian. As we've been saying. The Dems saved the economy, and the Repubs just said NO! Thank you for backing us up on that.
Yes, I know Bush did...but we all know he was a fiscal liberal.
Yeah yeah yeah. And all the Repubs in Congress for eight years were fiscal liberals too, right? Howcome you guys weren't telling Bush to stop throwing away the Clinton surplus?
You call 10% unemployment and $1.5T deficit "saving"?
Just be thankful idiot China keeps buying our worthless debt. If they ever wise up, we are in really bad shape. The day the Fed increases rates, market will drop 1000 pts.
Yeah, brian, Bush's $1.5T deficit was huge, I'll grant you that.
All I want is for some Republican to ever sensibly answer this simple question:
a.) The Iraq war will have cost $1T by the time operations are wound down, troops are moved out and worn-out equipment is replaced. How was this money well spent?
If there is no good answer to this question, it seems to me they should all just STFU for the next decade or so, about health care and everything else, and let the grownups try to fix the horrible mess they've made.
shrinkers said...Ah, Bart, the banking and financial deregulation that the Republicans pushed for had nothing to do with it, huh?
Nothing at all. None of the banking deregulation of various ownership combinations has anything to do with the problems asset we experienced with asset based instruments.
The problem which requires bank regulation is that asset based instruments (bundles of mortgages and credit card debt) are not transparent and do not require underwriting standards of their mortgage assets. This was never a problem before the CRA junk mortgages were added to the mix and failed. It needs to be addressed now and is not in the current Dem legislation.
filistro said..."Schools here in CO are closing! We don't need new schools!" Tell that one to the poor inner city kids whose schools are infested with cockroaches and lethal mold. Oh wait... out of sight, out of mind. Right, Bart?
Libertarian conservatives support vouchers so inner city kids and everyone else can escape inferior and dangerous government schools. However, the Obama Administration, the Dem Congress and the NEA oppose school reforms and have denied DC kids the way out Obama's own kids enjoy.
As for all this claptrap about the financial meltdown being caused solely by poor families buying into Bush's dream of "the ownership society"... tell that to the dittoheads.
Libertarian conservatives do not argue that those who do not pay their bills have any right at all to buy into the ownership society. That was an innovation of the Clinton Fed.
How much has the Kosovo war cost?
@BdP
Nothing at all. None of the banking deregulation of various ownership combinations has anything to do with the problems asset we experienced with asset based instruments.
And allowing consumer banks to merge with investments banks had no bad effects either, right?
You're a riot.
brian:
I note that you avoided filistro's question about Iraq.
filistro said...
All I want is for some Republican to ever sensibly answer this simple question:
a.) The Iraq war will have cost $1T by the time operations are wound down, troops are moved out and worn-out equipment is replaced. How was this money well spent?
To avoid the more unpalatable alternatives of a much more expensive war in the future with a re-armed Iraq with WMD threatening our oil supplies or maintaining the sanctions which Saddam was using as an excuse to starve or deny medical care to the 10,000 Shia who died each year. We should have finished the job the first time around when I was serving during the Persian Gulf War when we had Saddam on the run, but George I pulled the plug early.
If there is no good answer to this question, it seems to me they should all just STFU for the next decade or so, about health care and everything else, and let the grownups try to fix the horrible mess they've made.
The Iraq War was authorized and funded by a large bipartisan majority in Congress, including most of your so called "grown ups" in charge now.
Even if we concede for the sake of argument that Iraq was a waste of money, that does not justify far larger Dem wastes of money like the $800b stimulus, the $150b son of stimulus, and the 3.2 Trillion health insurance package (true cost over a decade after it goes into effect in 2013 including insurance purchase mandates).
Bart, I get so tired of right-wing red herrings. Somebody points out dilapidated schools and righties instantly yell "VOUCHERS!" If you think "vouchers" will solve all the problems of falling-down schools in America, you are utterly deluded.
Anyhow, all your arguments are moot because you are operating under false pretenses. You claim to be a libertarian but you are not because you oppose abortion. The right to do what one chooses with one's own body is the most basic of all libertarian principles.
That's why the Ron Paul followers have so greatly weakened the libertarian purity of purpose. I used to admire and even identify with them... but not any more.
wv... "deartarp".. I kid you not.
Blogger filistro said...
"I used to admire and even identify with them... but not any more."
I don't know...I mean I can understand where Libertarians are coming from, but I've always wondered how sad it must be to actually believe all of there assumptions about society.
As the old saying goes: A Libertarian is someone who doesn't have enough money to be a Republican and doesn't have enough friends to be a Democrat.
I see Bart has bought the "pre-emptive war" idea, the Bush Doctrine (that Palin couldn't identify).
A war of aggression is okay if we do it.
How offensive.
There were no WMDs. There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Hussein was not building WMDs and had no active program. Iraq was not a threat to us. And why are you willing to invade another country to give them medicare care (after killing about a million of them) but you want to deny medical care to people right here in the US?
Pathetic.
brian, a recent BBC study found the Kosovo war cost 30 billion pounds. So... what? 45 billion dollars? A couple of weeks in Iraq?
Wars are basically investments. If spending war money leads to long term peace, its worth it.
We defeated USSR in Cold War, now all that money we spent for 40 years can now be wasted on Medicare. If Iraq war leads to Middle East stability, it'll be worth it. history will judge it.
@BdP: Nothing at all. None of the banking deregulation of various ownership combinations has anything to do with the problems asset we experienced with asset based instruments.
shrinkers said...And allowing consumer banks to merge with investments banks had no bad effects either, right?
None. You will notice that there is no move by your Dem congress to rescind any of this deregulation. Rather, the Dems are using their mortgage meltdown as an excuse to expand government regulatory authority over nearly every aspect of the banking system, not to prevent the banks from merging.
filistro said...Bart, I get so tired of right-wing red herrings. Somebody points out dilapidated schools and righties instantly yell "VOUCHERS!" If you think "vouchers" will solve all the problems of falling-down schools in America, you are utterly deluded.
When folks have a choice, they generally choose the best alternative. That means substandard government schools and their government teachers like the ones you bemoan are put out of business. The only reason these substandard government schools even exist is because students are compelled to attend them by law.
You claim to be a libertarian but you are not because you oppose abortion. The right to do what one chooses with one's own body is the most basic of all libertarian principles.
Libertarians believe that the only legitimate laws are those that protect people from being harmed by others. If you believe as I do that we are all people at conception, then it is perfectly legitimate for a libertarian to support laws preventing others from killing us after conception.
@Brian
Fair enough, but in the current and far far more likely scenario that the Iraq War destabilizes the Middle East further, how will history judge it?
counting on my fingers here... Iraq war costs 1 trillion. A ten year war is about 500 weeks, right? So divide 1T by 500... carry the 2, multiply by..
Holy shit. That's can't be right. Please, somebody, do the math for me... my hands are shaking too much to count fingers any more.
Were you guys for the 1991 Gulf War? All we did was finish the job. I admit, I thought Saddam would be toppled, but unfortunately he wasn't.
Of course, if we followed liberals, Saddam would be ruler of Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia right now...instead of being dead.
@Bart
Yeah, the Libertarian perspective could include pro-life/anti-choice people depending on how they view the issue.
But vouchers? That's pure GOP. How could a Libertarian justify spending GUMMINT money sending people to school.
And policy-wise vouchers remain a savage and worthless excuse for an education plan. No matter how you implement them, they only give A FEW kids a chance to change schools.
Voucher advocates miss the whole point of public education--it's for EVERYONE. True, it's been ruthlessly defunded and the property tax-based funding system was ferkakdeh to begin with, but that's no excuse to defund it further for the benefit of a lucky few.
Schools are there to give everyone the skills they need, not to rescue just the brightest and best-connected.
The only reason these substandard government schools even exist is because students are compelled to attend them by law.
Where to begin? As Persuter would say... {facepalm}
the only legitimate laws are those that protect people from being harmed by others... this from a guy who would legitimize the denial of health care to poor families who can't afford it, and children who are dying without it. Of course, a gamete is so much more human than an actually existing living breathing child who is sick and hungry.
I don't know what's more disconcerting... the intellectual dishonesty or the smugness.
(Okay, I just held a vote and everybody here at my computer thinks it's the smugness...)
Bart DePalma said...
Libertarian conservatives support vouchers so inner city kids and everyone else can escape inferior and dangerous government schools. However, the Obama Administration, the Dem Congress and the NEA oppose school reforms and have denied DC kids the way out Obama's own kids enjoy.
The public high school in my town is in bad shape and has around 2,000 students. Most of these students are on free or reduced lunch. Are you suggesting that a fiscally reasonable alternative to attempting to fix the public high school (which is currently free to these students) would be to give all 2,000 kids vouchers that would allow them to attend area private schools at no cost? Please explain the economics of such a proposal, because I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be possible. Thanks.
thanks so much to Jacob and shrinkers. I'm already feeling better.
Sometimes when you're sick to death of all this dishonest CRAP, you just gotta vent.
I'll be back to my normal self in no time :-)
Yes filistro, almost $200 million/week, or $27 million/day, $1.1 million/hour, nearly 20 grand/minute.
Holy shit that's over $300 pissed away every SECOND.
Not to mention 3 soldiers killed every 2 days. That's JUST US soldiers BTW.
Total war casualties thus far have been at least 4 every HOUR.
shrinkers said...
I see Bart has bought the "pre-emptive war" idea, the Bush Doctrine (that Palin couldn't identify). A war of aggression is okay if we do it.
The doctrine of preemption is a defensive doctrine where the enemy is about to strike you and you instead land the first punch. The Bush folks took this a step further in cases of WMD because of the enormous downside of miscalculation.
None of this was necessary with Iraq. The Persian Gulf War never ended in a peace treaty. Rather, Iraq agreed to a cease fire requiring it to meet a series of requirements or a state of war would exist again. Because Iraq repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement, we were already in a state of war.
There were no WMDs.
There were 500+ shells of sarin and mustard gas found, we do not know what was transported out of country into Syria and we found that all of the WMD programs were active. As soon as sanctions were lifted, Iraq was within a year of obtaining the bomb. Read the WMD inspection reports, the interviews with the inspectors and the disclosed and translated Iraqi intelligence documents captured during the war.
There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Captured Iraqi intelligence documents revealed that Iraq had been training foreign suicide bombers since the late 90s, al Qaeda was recruiting terrorists to fight us in Afghanistan in 2002 and roughly 1500 al Qaeda, including hundreds who had fled from Afghnaistan, were engaged by the SF and the Kurds in the opening two weeks of the war in Operation Viking Hammer.
If Iraq just gets another dictator, yes, Iraq War will have been a major mistake. It was a big risk no doubt. Just like Reagan's policies could have led to World Nuclear War....and been a disaster. But, they didn't, so they are a major success.
These are the risks presidents take that history judges them on.
Lucklily, the US has been right on most of these historically. Who would've thought Japan would be a great ally today?
Brian,
Hate to break it to you but the cold war would have ended without St. Ronnie. Perestroika much? Ever heard of Glastnost?
jacob... $200 million a week would be about a billion a month... 12 billion a year, $120 billion total for ten years. Wouldn't it? Am I doing something wrong here?
To cost anywhere close to a trillion, wouldn't it have to be closer to a billion a week, over 50 billion a year?
Can this even be possible?
Jacob said...But vouchers? That's pure GOP. How could a Libertarian justify spending GUMMINT money sending people to school.
That depends on what flavor of libertarian you are. I am not an anarchist. I have no problem with cost effective government services which apply to everyone.
And policy-wise vouchers remain a savage and worthless excuse for an education plan. No matter how you implement them, they only give A FEW kids a chance to change schools.
This is how we have been funding higher education for decades. Government subsidy for students attending a mix of competing private and public universities. The result has been the finest system of higher education on Earth. No reason not to include all education in this system.
Schools are there to give everyone the skills they need, not to rescue just the brightest and best-connected.
BD: The only legitimate laws are those that protect people from being harmed by others...
filistro said...this from a guy who would legitimize the denial of health care to poor families who can't afford it, and children who are dying without it.
You have no idea what my health care proposals are. I would support a system where the government collects health insurance premiums through a FAIR tax so there are no free riders. That money would be given back to each citizen to choose a preventative and catastrophic health insurance policy and the rest would go into a health savings account. The citizen rather than a private or public health insurer would self ration care by deciding whether to spend the money in the HSA on health care or on themselves when the balance is refunded to them on tax day.
I agree that health care is something that the average person cannot save for and thus requires partial socialization through insurance. However, in order to contain cost inflation, you must return the choice of treatment to the consumer as is the case with nearly every other good and service.
This system works. Forbes Magazine has used this system for years and contained its health care costs. Of course, the Dem health insurance legislation will outlaw HSAs.
Chris said...The public high school in my town is in bad shape and has around 2,000 students. Most of these students are on free or reduced lunch. Are you suggesting that a fiscally reasonable alternative to attempting to fix the public high school (which is currently free to these students) would be to give all 2,000 kids vouchers that would allow them to attend area private schools at no cost?
Yes. The average amount spend of educating a child in a government school is generally between $6000 to $12000 per year. Under a voucher plan, that money would all be given to the parent to pay tuition charged by the school, which covers capital plant expenses as well as teaching. Government schools would need to compete with private schools on tuition and quality just as government universities compete with private universities. The amount currently spent on students is more than enough to cover this tuition. Of course, thousands of NEA members would be out of work unless they raised their standards.
@filistro
Whoa yeah my bad, should be nearly $2 BILLION/week, $270 Million/day, $11 Million/hour, $200K/minute, over $3000/second. Thanks for catching that.
Or it takes less than 2 minutes in Iraq to spend what the average American family has made since the Iraq War began.
BdP, can you give a source for your statements about WMDs and an Iraq/al Qaeda tie? Because Bush admitted these things were false, so I'm curious who is making these claims.
The idea that unprovoked attacks on a country that is no threat could be viewed as an "investment" is odious.
@brian,
Of course, if we followed liberals, Saddam would be ruler of Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia right now...instead of being dead.
Iraq was incapable of attacking anybody, and all its neighbors were perfectly able to defend themselves. Iraq had been entirely declawed after the first Gulf War. We were patrolling its airspace, for crissake. Your red herring here is absurd in the extreme.
Bush's unnecessary and unprovoked war in Iraq has killed over 4000 American troops, and nearly a million innocent Iraqis. It has destroyed America's standing in the world, pissed off our allies, emboldened our foes, helped to destroy our economy, stretched out military to the breaking point, furnished further excuse for Bush to trash the Constitution (not to mention international law) -- and for no reason. It accomplished nothing positive. If it was an "investment", it failed miserably.
$1 trillion over 10 years equals $100 billion per year equals $8.3 billion per month equals $1.9 billion per week equals $274 million per day equals $11.4 million per hour equals $190,259 per minute equals $3,171 per second.
@Bart
Yes, and we also have one of the most expensive systems of higher education. It does NOT effectively give everyone the chance to go to college--millions of kids are priced out of a college education and tens of millions more are saddled with debt for decades.
It would be an absolute tragedy for public education to become such a system: Can't afford elementary school tuition and don't qualify for a voucher? Too bad, you never get to learn to read.
brian wrote:
"If Iraq war leads to Middle East stability, it'll be worth it. history will judge it."
Ah, the old "history will judge" argument, which somehow can only be employed by those on the Right to defend the actions of Republicans. Yes, it may look like what a Republican did was stupid now, but one must wait decades for "history" to "judge" before one can even begin to form an opinion on the matter. Anything less would intellectually dishonest, right?
Oddly, we do not have to wait for "history" to "judge" any of Obama's actions if one is one the Right. In fact, one can quite comfortably denounce in advance every decision, even make up things that the Right "knows" Obama will do, without waiting decades for "history" to pass judgement.
Why is "history" incapable of judging the stimulus and the auto bailout, for example? Surely we should wait decades before coming to a hasty decision. Any else would be intellectually dishonest, if we are to follow brian's reasoning.
As far as the invasion of Iraq, it seems to have done quite a remarkable job of eliminating Iran's greatest foe, thus increasing instability. The solution is, of course, yet another invasion to secure "stability", which we must not hastily pass judgement upon and must let the decades pass before we can see the wisdom of such a decision - a decision necessitated by a previous decision that we likewise cannot pass judgement upon.
Just admit, brian, that the "history will judge" narrative really means "give us decades to spin".
Brian further wrote:
"Were you guys for the 1991 Gulf War? All we did was finish the job. I admit, I thought Saddam would be toppled, but unfortunately he wasn't."
Hey, shouldn't we wait for "history to judge" on that score? I mean, Bush Senior was a Republican, after all. Maybe it was "all strategery". We should wait until 2020 before even trying to think about the wisdom of the 1991 Gulf War, if we are to believe what you asserted moments earlier.
Thank you Chris... I've been struggling with that calculation... but my mental computer keeps seizing up and making these funny beeping sounds...
$274 million a day.
For an utterly useless war.
Brought to you by "the party of fiscal responsibility."
Again I say... holy shit.
HEY GUYS!
See how easy it is?
As I said, the Repubs still have the same arguments they had in 2008. They still have the same nonsense to defend that they had to defend then. And they have nothing better to offer today, only the same failed arguments they made then.
As I said, with the right people running the Dem campaigns, 2010 will be a cakewalk.
Listening to brian and BdP, I feel better already! :)
Gosh all we have to do next year is get the Repubs busy trying to defend the Iraq war, and explaining why they want to dismantle public schools.
Really, how hard do you think this is gonna be?
Dems should just admit they are bankrupt on foreign policy. Even Dem presidents have Repub Defense secretaries (Cohen, Gates) cause they know people are scared of having libs in charge of Defense.
Dems should just stick to their strength, socializing every segment of the economy.
brian said...
blah blah
I mean, see how easy it is to get them to say dumb things?
The old "Dems are weak on military" nonsense. Wow.
Especially from a guy touting the virtues of an unnecessary trillion-dollar military invasion that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and strained our military to the breaking point.
yeah, that's the party that knows foreign policy
@ brian
There's a whole lot more to foreign policy than defense. The better you are diplomacy, the less you need to invest (in terms of money and lives) in "defense".
Bart wrote:
"There were 500+ shells of sarin and mustard gas found, we do not know what was transported out of country into Syria and we found that all of the WMD programs were active."
And all of those shells were expired. The gas inside them was useless. Added to that is that they were acquired by Iraq during the Reagan Administration, when Saddam was considered a good guy by Republicans because he was keeping Iran down.
We don't know how many WMDs were sent to Syria. Right, we don't know, but you feel safe in assuming that they were sent there. Odd how "we don't know" can be spun by a wingnut to mean "we do know, but the evidence was craftily concealed".
Hell, let's invade Tonga. They might have WMDs. We don't know that they do, but they could. I mean, any country with a high school level chemistry lab could manufacture chemical weapons. Any country with a brewery could manufacture biological weapons. Any country that possesses a stick of dynamite and the depleted uranium found in U.S. rounds (or in smoke detectors) could make a dirty bomb.
We must strike first before Tonga makes its move. We cannot afford to wait for evidence; we must safely assume that evidence will be found after we invade Tonga. And if it is not found, it is because Tonga craftily sent these weapons to Indonesia. The logic is airtight. If we create intelligence reports based on bribing a few Tongans to say what we want to hear, we can pass those reports to other countries' intelligence services. They will believe them, because we will insist that they are reliable. Then we can say that "everyone" believes Tonga has WMDs.
That is the Bush Doctrine. If we can convince ourselves that a country could be a threat at some point in the future, we can do whatever we like to that country and be justified. We cannot evaluate the evidence beforehand, because that would waste precious time and let the other country know that we are on to them. And anyone who questions the grounds for our actions is guilty of treason. The logic is airtight.
brian, let me repeat -
Bush's unnecessary and unprovoked war in Iraq has killed over 4000 American troops, and nearly a million innocent Iraqis. It has destroyed America's standing in the world, pissed off our allies, emboldened our foes, helped to destroy our economy, stretched our military to the breaking point, furnished further excuse for Bush to trash the Constitution (not to mention international law)
And you say the Dems "are bankrupt on foreign policy"? Really?
This is too easy.
shrinkers Really, how hard do you think this is gonna be?
No kidding.
Especially when your opposition has no rallying points except Gods, Guns, Gays and Gametes.
Baghdad Bart said...
There were 500+ shells of sarin and mustard gas found, we do not know what was transported out of country into Syria and we found that all of the WMD programs were active. As soon as sanctions were lifted, Iraq was within a year of obtaining the bomb. Read the WMD inspection reports, the interviews with the inspectors and the disclosed and translated Iraqi intelligence documents captured during the war.
What a load of crap. Even Cheney has stopped trying to sell these lies.
Hey, this is fun. :-)
I'm beginning to look forward to 2010.
Easy pickin's, kids.
Hell, Todd, I think we should invade Texas. They've been talking secession, and we know they're armed.
Besides, they''re harboring a war criminal. Just think what that Bush guy might do. We know he's already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of his own countrymen, and has invaded another country that was no threat to him. (Sounds like some other petty dictator I have heard of ...)
filistro, I'm glad to cheer you up :)
Sadddam Hussein is dead, BTW. And Iraq has a constitution.
How much was spent doing flyover in Iraq? I guess we could do flyovers for the next 50 years, or just get rid of Saddam. Dragging conflicts out over decades is not a money saver. See Cold War.
Too bad Saddamm wasn't killing gays, then libs would be all for nuking Iraq.
"Dem are weak on military" is a saying for a reason. God, I still remeber the 2008 Dem debates on foreign policy. Wow, talk about vacuous. When Joe Biden is your stud, you know you're weak.
shrinkers said... BdP, can you give a source for your statements about WMDs and an Iraq/al Qaeda tie? Because Bush admitted these things were false, so I'm curious who is making these claims.
My sources are at the bottom of the paragraph making the statements.
Jacob said... Yes, and we also have one of the most expensive systems of higher education. It does NOT effectively give everyone the chance to go to college--millions of kids are priced out of a college education and tens of millions more are saddled with debt for decades.
College education is cost effective because graduates earn more than they spend on university. In any case, there are no loans for elementary and secondary education - simply vouchers along the lines of Pell Grants.
shrinkers said...See how easy it is? As I said, the Repubs still have the same arguments they had in 2008. They still have the same nonsense to defend that they had to defend then. And they have nothing better to offer today, only the same failed arguments they made then. As I said, with the right people running the Dem campaigns, 2010 will be a cakewalk. Listening to brian and BdP, I feel better already! :)
In 2006 and 2008, the Dems campaigned as more fiscally responsible and less corrupt than the GOP and against Bush. Bush is long gone and the Dem governance has shot responsibility and corruption meme all to hell.
The voters support change until they actually have to live with it.
brian --
Now make a list of other countries that have leaders we don't like, so we can invade them, too.
And explain why other countries who don't like our leader shouldn't feel free to invade us.
That "Hussein is no longer in power" argument is absurd, and is the most offensive kind of imperialism. It's also not the reason we were told we were invading Iraq. if it was a valid reason, it would have been used.
You guys are morally bankrupt. And some of you claim to be Christians! Wow. No wonder you got resoundingly kicked out of power last year.
shrinkers wrote:
"Hell, Todd, I think we should invade Texas. They've been talking secession, and we know they're armed."
Wait just a minute there. First we must find some low-level flunky in Texas government; if they are mentally ill, all the better. Then we have to promise this flunky that we will eliminate everyone the flunky doesn't like if we invade. Last, we must give this flunky millions of dollars for the risk they are taking. Only then can we have the flunky sign off on a fantasy list of alleged crimes and threats, which will be our "proof". Of course, we must keep the identity of the flunky concealed as part of the deal, so that no one can ever check the validity of our claims.
History will be the judge. That's why the evidence must be concealed, because history has a bad habit of using evidence against people doing what they think is right. The logic is airtight. What could possibly go wrong?
@Bart DePalma
No link huh? Didn't think so. That's okay, Todd took care of your nonsense.
Iraq had no WMDs, and there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. An unnecessary war we were lied into that has been a foreign and domestic disaster. And you're defending it.
Gosh, it's gonna be fun cleaning your clocks again next year :-)
brian wrote:
"God, I still remeber the 2008 Dem debates on foreign policy."
Again, shouldn't we wait for history to judge those debates? It hasn't even been two years. You can't possibly form an opinion yet.
See guys? My point was that it's way too early to worry about the 2010 elections. And when the campaign gets into full swing -- well, the wacky right can't avoid saying stoopid things and just making crap up.
It doesn't matter what the issue is, what the topic is, or what is happening this week in Dec 2009. If conservatives who are trying to sound sane here on 538 say this stuff, just imagine what the Tea Party candidates are going to sound like.
2010 is not going to turn out as MSM and common wisdom expect.
There are no other leaders--Iraq was it. Saddam is the only dictator who tried for decades to use military might to disrupt our allies for his economic gain.
History judges foreign policy. Alot of is art- no right answer. But economics is science, so any Econ 101 student can tell you today Dem policies will drive us bankrupt.
brian said...
"...any Econ 101 student can tell you today Dem policies will drive us bankrupt."
Except for the many who don't. But hey they're not neocons so they don't count, right?
There are no other leaders--Iraq was it. Saddam is the only dictator who tried for decades to use military might to disrupt our allies for his economic gain.
Another rightwingnut pantload. Hussein did nothing of the sort.
It's significant that brian's excuse for the Iraq war was never actually used as a reason by the Bush ADmin for invading Iraq. It's a nice trick -- after the fact, look for some feature, anything at all, that can be presented in a positive light, and pretend that was the reason for the whole thing -- and that this reason outweighs all the destruction and lies and deaths and cost and loss of America's standing and violations of law and Constitution, and and and...
And to make it better, even brian's reason for disliking Hussein is bogus nonsense.
Utter crap.
Here you go, guys. SOmeone finally asked the right polling questions on healthcare.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/poll-health-care-reform-w_n_396990.html
"...only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance."
"Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea. The number of Republican supporters drops to 22 percent, but independent support rises to 57 percent and Democratic support to a whopping 88 percent."
Yes, support for the bill has fallen. It's because the bill does not go far enough.
BdP and brian and Pat and their ilk have it exactly backwards.
And the voters are really gonna punish the Part of No! for having stood in the way of real reform.
And in 2011, with larger majorities, we can come back and do it right, having established the existence of a health care package NOW that we can modify.
shrinkers said...
@Bart DePalma No link huh? Didn't think so. That's okay, Todd took care of your nonsense.
Ever hear of google?
Alternatively, go to my blog, where I have several posts discussing the evidence concerning WMD, terror and the iraqi intelligence documents. Use the search function on the upper right of the home page. Here are some of the more comprehensive discussions:
http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2008/05/jihadist-dream-for-united-states.html
http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2008/03/partners-in-business-of-terror-saddam.html
http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2008/03/pentagon-reports-on-captured-iraqi.html
Here are a few dozen links to captured Iraqi intelligence documents:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=prewardocs
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/329paqcc.asp
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5CNAT20041011a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200410/SPE20041004a.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5267
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Released-20060320/ISGZ-2004-009247-original.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600579/posts
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1734490
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/iraq_intelligen.html#trackback
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013511.php
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013512.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007505.php#comments
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/CMPC-2003-006430.pdf
http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/03/released-iraqi-mukhabarat-note/
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/right-blogosphere-scammed-by-bogus.html
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013466.php
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22055
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2058597_3,00.html
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/saddam_document.html#trackback
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1734490
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611976/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1613509/posts
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007506.php#comments
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1734490
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617431/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1651626/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612527/posts
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5CNAT20041011a.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200410/SPE20041004a.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602985/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610012/posts
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006710.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006711.php
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/04/pre_911_ts_doc_.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603696/posts
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/CMPC-2003-001488.pdf
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/translated%20document%20001.pdf
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts
http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2006/03/afghani-taliban-consul-spoke-of.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1734490
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007516.php#comments
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608944/posts
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/ISGQ-2003-00004500-0.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1734490
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031502742.html
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006534.php#trackbacks
http://www.juancole.com/2006/03/saddam-was-trying-to-capture-zarqawi.html
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/04/iraqi_security_.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1642403/posts
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007413.php#comments
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/russian_scienti.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603917/posts
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1028135,00.html
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Released-20060317/ISGP-2003-00028868.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/26/wsaddam26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/26/ixworld.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603039/posts
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/saddam_wmd_and_.html#trackback
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/russia_provides.html#trackback
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-03-24T203341Z_01_N24241162_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-RUSSIA.xml&rpc=22
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/24/D8GI5MIG1.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616468/posts
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/04/iraq_document_o.html#comment-16260960
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618519/posts
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007528.php#comments
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html
http://www.intelligencesummit.org/
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1624442
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/16/90042.shtml?s=lh
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18175250%255E601,00.html
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/was_anthrax_sto.html#trackback
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/clear_evidence_.html#trackback
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/sadda_admits_to.html#trackback
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/proof_russia_wa.html#trackback
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/bingo.html#trackback
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/the_first_tape_.html#trackback
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/22/105535.shtml?s=ic
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006713.php#trackbacks
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621334/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1624797/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637240/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635308/posts
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/so-how-bad-are-things-in-iraq-really.html
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/03/18/us_puts_iraqi_documents_on_the_web?mode=PF
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp=&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraqi-documents-rebut-senate.html
shrinkers said...
Here you go, guys. SOmeone finally asked the right polling questions on healthcare.
The questions are not correct unless you include price tags and tradeoffs.
Shots said...
Obama himself has acknowledged this is true; the only question is whether or not he was just paying lip service to the idea or if he will ever back up his words with deeds that actually stop the spending madness.
Well, he's committed to troop withdrawal. So that's a step in the right direction with regard to reducing the spending madness.
Bart, I tried these two, they didn't work:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq.asp
I'm not going to bother looking at freeper spin sites.
The abcnews site is very old, including rumors later disproven, concerning a supposed 1995 meeting that never took place.
Do you have anything of any substance, Bart?
Alternatively, go to my blog, where I have several posts discussing the evidence concerning WMD, terror and the iraqi intelligence documents. Use the search function on the upper right of the home page. Here are some of the more comprehensive discussions:
...
http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2008/03/pentagon-reports-on-captured-iraqi.html
From the second paragraph of your linked article:
The report concludes that Saddam had no "direct operational link" with al Qaeda. In plain English, all that phrase means is that none of the reviewed documents directly links Saddam with an al Qaeda terror operation.
Well gawrsh, now I'm convinced!
Man, Bart - every day it gets more and more understandable why you choose to spend your life defending drunk drivers.
Bart DePalma said...
The questions are not correct unless you include price tags and tradeoffs.
As if polling people not only on benefits they don't understand but also on costs and tradeoffs they don't understand will yield meaningful results. Most of the polling on HCR is useless. You can get whatever answer you want, which has been demonstrated ad nauseum by people on all sides of this issue.
@Bart DePalma
The questions are not correct unless you include price tags and tradeoffs.
You may be right:
Price tag -- reduces the Federal deficit by around $70 billion over 10 years.
Tradeoffs -- saves about 45,000 lives / year.
You're right, that might affect popularity.
Good Lord, of all the misleading ways to ask a poll question to get a favorable result. Had to read the question 3 times to even understand.
Just ask:
1) Which healthcare structure will best improve cost/quality going forward...public or private?
No, nice try shots, but not all economists agree that leaving the recession alone and letting industries collapse will improve our fiscal health.
@Brian
That's a much better question, although you should include "both public and private options" as well. My guess is that category will poll the highest, but then again what system people think will reduce costs and improve quality is really an irrelevant question.
Especially now that only purely private HC is on the table.
@brian
Had to read the question 3 times to even understand.
That explains a lot. Thanks for sharing.
@Jacob
but then again what system people think will reduce costs and improve quality is really an irrelevant question.
Absolutely. My point is that batnuts have been crowing that HCR is "unpopular" and we therefore shouldn't be doing it. But it's only "unpopular" because the proposals don't go far enough. IF one is going to claim that we should simply do what the polls tell us to do, then right wingers should now pivot and say we should be expanding Medicare and adding a public option.
But no, it was a bogus argument from the start -- as the wingers reveal when they don't embrace the new poll. The real point, as you say Jacob, is we should do what's right for America, regardless of the noise from the Fixed Noise spin machine.
Here are a few dozen links to captured Iraqi intelligence documents:
Baghdad, throwing lots of crap against the wall does not change the fact that there was no WMD and no connection with Al Qaeda.
Shots, what's your prescription? How would you suggest we reduce the federal deficit?
brian wrote:
"But economics is science, so any Econ 101 student can tell you today Dem policies will drive us bankrupt."
But surely we have learned from the Right that science cannot be trusted. As long as a handful of scientists disagree, then we cannot be sure about any aspect of science. For example, when the scientific consensus favours man-made global warming, then science is subject to conspiracies and cannot be trusted.
But when science agrees with the wingnut (and economic consensus is nowhere near backing up brian's assertions of bankruptcy), then science is an infallible thing that only an idiot would question.
Also, history certainly judges science as well as foreign policy. Otherwise, we would still believe in the physics of caloric or the medical value of blood-letting.
It's really great that we have intellectual giants like brian around to tell us which things history is allowed to judge and which subjects are out of bounds for history to weigh in on. The important thing is that such wingnuts present these assertions as common knowledge, and that other wingnuts can be relied upon to nod their heads in sage agreement when such "common knowledge" is expressed.
"Saddam is the only dictator who tried for decades to use military might to disrupt our allies for his economic gain."
Our allies? Is Iran our ally now?
Look, Saddam was a darling of the Right for at least a decade because he carried out an extremely bloody trench war with Iran, who was our sworn enemy. The Right didn't care then that he used poison gas, or that he murdered his own people; in fact, they defended his actions at the time.
The only Middle Eastern nation that considered Saddam to be a threat (outside of Iran) was Israel, and they consider every country in the Middle East to be a threat.
I mean, seriously, Bush backed the dictatorship of Pakistan against our democratic ally India.
Bush backed all of the Gulf State dictatorships, and Israel thinks that all of them are a threat to Israel. Add Egypt to that list, too, because it is a democracy in name only.
Bush backed a lot of dictators. So did Reagan. How many votes did the Shah get, brian? Oh, but he was a friendly dictator, so that was okay with the Right. What about that crazy dictatorship in Burma that carried out widespread genocide during the Bush Administration? Oh, yeah, they were friendly, too, so that was just an "internal matter".
Bart, I suggest you ignore Shrinkers
Shrinkers is living in a delusional land with his expectation that the Democrats will pick up a dozen seats in the House.
Especially since every major political analyst forecasts losses for the Democrats in the House. Including Nate here.
It's part of his continued blind support for the far left, barring any relation to reality or consideration for actual discussion of policy. It's like if there are 99 points against him, and 1 that vaguely favors his position, he'll cling to that exclusively, and ignore every other point. Reasonable debate involves give and take on points. There's none of that with him.
Bart, his recent discussion with you on the links is a perfect example. He clings to the point that "2 of the links don't work" while ignoring the rest of the "Freepers" sites. From my point, a simple viewing of the links brings up a NYTimes link that proves your point fine.
I'd ignore Shrinkers in the future if I were you.
Medicare is private??
Why do libs forget Medicare? Oh, the HC system is a mess....but just the private part. The 45% thats govt run....a model of efficiency! At least us "neocons" admit its all messed up.
@ Shots
You didn't watch until the end of the speech? "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." What talking point are you imagining I'm regurgitating?
Science gets politicized, like anything else (see Ben Bernanke)
Thanks, Pat, I appreciate how you're defending me from Bart, but I can take it.
:-)
Seriously though, it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if you guys ignored me. Seriously.
brian:
We've already sen what conservative economic theory does the the national and world economy. Clearly you guys are simply wrong, and the best course is undoubtedly to do the opposite of what you recommend.
You know, Bart, there was another country that had Al Qaeda terrorists training inside their borders: The U.S. under Bush.
Our allies in Europe have Al Qaeda operatives within their borders. Shall we invade them, too? Most of them have WMDs, as well. Let's not wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud, eh?
And we all know Pakistan had no Al Qaeda whatsoever, and that the ISI is squeaky clean, so no need to invade the dictatorship there. No, let's give them billions instead. They can use those billions to buy advanced weapons systems that are useless against fighting terrorism, but are great for a war with their democratic neighbour India. Because dictators who say the right things are fine with Bush, even ones whose intelligence service support the Afghan insurgents. They mean well, and we should support them, right?
@brian
Why do libs forget Medicare? the HC system is a mess....but just the private part. The 45% thats govt run....a model of efficiency!
Actually, yes it is. 97% of the money Medicare takes in goes to actual health care, as opposed to about 75% in the private insurance sector.
And no one gets denied for preexisting conditions, and no one gets rescinded.
Thanks for reminding us that, yes indeed, the public system beats the private system hands down.
Shots said...
*sigh*
The question isn't whether it's possible that current deficits, or even the much smaller deficits from Democratic-generated programs could lead to insolvency, sure it COULD. That doesn't mean we live in Brian's fantasy world where everyone agrees that it will happen automatically.
But the question is whether leaving the recession to take care of itself and letting major industries collapse, not hiring or saving any jobs is MORE likely to lead to insolvency than getting out of the recession. If you think there's economic consensus that leaving the problem alone would be better, you're nuts.
Blogger Pat said...
"It's like if there are 99 points against him, and 1 that vaguely favors his position..."
Pat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
brian wrote:
"Science gets politicized, like anything else (see Ben Bernanke)"
Huh? And foreign policy doesn't get politicised, so we have wait for "history to judge" in that case?
So here we have brian's case:
- science gets politicised.
- economics is a science; we must trust science.
- foreign policy is not science, so nobody can tell who is right or wrong about a policy. We must leave it to history to judge.
- we can only trust science when politics are left out of it, and there are no politics involved in economics, so we do not have await history's judgement regarding economic policies.
Wow. Just wow, brian.
Extra points to Bart for defending that case, too.
So, no problems with Medicare/Medicaid, right? Even thought its half the entire system? Its all in the evil private system? Even though your 75% is way off. I believe you're just cherry picking the individual market--whcih covers what, 10% of people?
shrinkers said...
Bart, I tried these two, they didn't work...
The government shut down publication of the documents after the Iraqi plans for a nuclear weapon were accidentally posted for a few days.
Sorry, I cut and pasted the entire collection of links and did not have time to check them all out. Some of them are 2-3 years old now.
I'm not going to bother looking at freeper spin sites.
These are the translations of a Lebanese engineer living in New Jersey who was interviewed by the Boston Globe about his translation work. Not a single one of his translations has been challenged.
The other translation work was done by Ray Robison, a WMD inspector. There are a couple dozen links to his work.
Read them all before you spout off again about Iraq having no WMD programs or relationship with al Qaeda. And keep in mind there are a half million more unreleased Iraqi intelligence documents in government possession.
Excellent analysis of the argument, Todd.
Let's be real, though. Economics is a science the way psychology is a science, not the way physics or biology or climatology are sciences.
There is debate in economics (and in psychology) about even some of the basics. In physics, there is no doubt the earth is about 4 - 5 billion years old; in biology, thee is no question that evolution occurred ; in climatology there is consensus about human-influenced global climate change.
The economic theories of the supply-siders have been shown to be the disaster they are, having twice now in a hundred years led to the collapse of the world economy (the first time it wasn't called "supply-side" yet, but the theories were basically the same). That there are still people defending these ideas is unsurprising, since there are also still people (often the same ones) saying the Earth is only 6000 years old and people walked with dinosaurs.
It takes a great deal of faith to believe impossible things -- St Augustine said so, and even said that the more absurd is the belief, the more holy is the believer. He is sometimes still taken seriously, too.
Todd Dugdale said...
You know, Bart, there was another country that had Al Qaeda terrorists training inside their borders: The U.S. under Bush.
The flight training of the 9/11 cell started on and off in the 90s.
Our allies in Europe have Al Qaeda operatives within their borders. Shall we invade them, too?
If they decline to hand them over for rendition, prosecute and imprison them, or allow them to set up camps, by all means we should take matters into our own hands.
Most of them have WMDs, as well. Let's not wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud, eh?
If they attack their neighbors, train terrorists and use WMDs, then we should take action against them as well.
Iraq hasn't had a functional nuclear program since it was destroyed in 1980.
Anyone know how that happened?
Was it a massive invasion and toppling of the government?
Or perhaps a decades-long occupation?
No it happened due to a quick airstrike specifically on nuclear research and weapons-manufacturing facilities.
So please, let's not have any more of this BS about a decade-long war being necessary to remove Iraq's nonexistent WMDs.
Read them all before you spout off again about Iraq having no WMD programs or relationship with al Qaeda. And keep in mind there are a half million more unreleased Iraqi intelligence documents in government possession.
Baghdad, I've read all the bullshit you have posted. NONE of it says what you claim it says. There was no WMD. There were no connections with Al Qaeda. Stop your fucking lying.
Blogger Bart DePalma said...
"If they attack their neighbors, train terrorists and use WMDs, then we should take action against them as well."
So if there were a large superpower that let's say invaded and conquered sovereign nations, has used WMDs in the past, and trains terrorists, other nations should get the green light to attack this hypothetical superpower?
Keep in mind Bart, Iraq was only 1 for 3 on your list of reasons.
I took a look at a couple of them Bart. I'm unimpressed. The conservative commentators try to spin certain documents into things they are not.
The UN inspectors found no evidence whatever of active WMD programs, and there is no evidence whatever of any connection between Hussein and al Qaeda, and certainly none between Iraq and 9/11. As I said, even Bush admitted there was no connection, and no WMDs.
The argument basically goes -- Hussein was a bad man. He once had gas and chemical agents we gave him. He once may even have had a program to develop nukes, back in the 90's. Documents from that era, and later documents describing them, were found (surprise!) in the Iraqi archives.
I'm not impressed.
Oh wait, there's more -- Hussein was a Bad Man. So he MUST HAVE BEEN planning something bad.
I'm feeling much more cheerful, and am back to work. Again thanks so much, guys. About 2010... in the words of our most eloquent statesman.. Bring. It. On.
I just have two quick points to make.
1.) Bart supports the right of the state to tell a woman what to do with her own body, and he supports the aggressive interventionist Iraq war.Ergo: BART IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN.
2.) "Shots" is 12 years old.
That is all. Carry on :-)
@Shots -
Easy. Have the government spend less than it takes in, which should come from some form of overhaul of the tax code that simplifies it greatly and implements a "millionaire's tax" that raises taxes heavily on the upper 1% of earners as well as cuts in unnecessary spending and reductions in spending through more efficiency. Nothing is sacred, so that could be anything from the military to grants for research if we're getting little in the way of a return on our investment.
Good first principles. Similar to what Clinton did, in fact. I like some of your tax ideas.
Now, which programs would you cut first? Please be specific.
@filistro
Don't forget, our dear friend Bart believes that should two loving consenting adults seek to get married, the federal government has the Sovereign Power to determine whether or not they are worthy of marriage.
And thank the Good Lord there is finally a new thread up.
Bart, I picked four of your links at random.
Three were 404 (not working).
One was about Russia, and merely had an anonymous commenter asserting that half of the weapons used by insurgents in Iraq were of Russian make. Nothing about Al Qaeda.
Let's try one more. Oh, a freerepublic post quoting Allawi as saying that two militants entered Iraq secretly, but that no one knows when or how they entered the country. It seems, though, that the intelligence services were tracking them to see who these two men contacted so that they could eliminate what they clearly considered a security threat.
So, there you go. Obviously Saddam embraced Al Qaeda. That's why they had to sneak into the country using false names, and why they met with people who wanted to overthrow Saddam - because Saddam supported them.
And our FBI allowing the 9/11 hijackers to roam freely while we tracked who they had contact with was completely different than Saddam doing the exact same thing.
Wow, I'm overwhelmed by the logic.
"If they attack their neighbors, train terrorists and use WMDs, then we should take action against them as well."
Well, Saddam attacked their neighbour (Iran) with our full support and blessing. They used WMDs in that war with our full support and blessing. They used WMDs internally while Republicans shrugged and called it an internal matter. They did not train terrorists, either; they merely tracked them.
However, when Pakistan attacks their neighbour India multiple times, is known to have nuclear weapons, is known to train terrorists, and is a dictatorship...well, that's a different case entirely. Let's give them several billion and defend their human rights record, like we did for Saddam until he stopped reading off our script.
"The flight training of the 9/11 cell started on and off in the 90s"
But it happened on American soil, so the U.S. is obviously training Al Qaeda, right? And we just allowed these people to enter the country, and so obviously approved of the 9/11 attack, right?
Everything that you said we should attack our European allies for (if they were to do it) was done right here.
@ Shots
So my mentioning that the President is committed to troop withdrawal by citing a line from a speech about his military strategy is either naivety on my part or my "regurgitating a talking point"? Is that the case for anything he says, or just when it's convenient for you? And isn't your charge that he's lying just a regurgitation of a Joe Wilson talking point? Regardless, if you're going to claim that primary sources such as the President's speech are lies and/or talking points, then there isn't much point in continuing the discussion.
From my point, a simple viewing of the links brings up a NYTimes link that proves your point fine.
Pat—
How?
GROG said...
The tell tale sign of having no ideas is when you have nothing to say except "teabagger, pary of no, teabagger, Palin's dumb, teabagger, Rush is fat, teabagger...." It's hilarious.
~~~~~~~~~~
For the record, it was the right wing blogosphere/talk radio/fox news which first coined the phrase teabagger and being kind, palin is politically challenged and I believe Limbaugh has been watching his weight, congrats!
and to Brian, BDP et al still trying to rationalize/apologize/spin cheney/bush's Iraq war ~ do yourself a favor and give it a rest ...
speaking of which, when (5) deferment, chickenhawk, neocon cheney started on his daily nonsensical rants against Obama immediately after he took office was trying to decide his true motive besides Rep spin.
and determined what cheney is really, really, really pissed off about is his name will appear as v-p in the history books as who was vice-president ie 2nd in command in charge of protecting America when terrorists attacked the frickin' Pentagon !!! on 9/11 and cheney ended up in some protective bunker hiding out of sight.
So he's projecting his enormous guilt factor!
whereas Bush doesn't care lol. He's just happy he's not president anymore and making a lot of money as he really never wanted to be president in the first place ...
Also, for the record it was the Reps who started the name calling back in the 60s er the scorched earth campaigning ie America, love it or leave it, etc.
and it took 'til Obama's campaign last year for the Dems to be on an even par w/Reps re: name calling ;)
btw, it's hard to be the party of national security when less than a year into cheney/bush's presidency the WTC towers were attacked by terrorists and destroyed.
One never gets a second chance to make a first impression, eh
Pearl Harbor is the only similar example of outside terrorists attacking America and Hawaii wasn't a state back then and didn't have the advantage or modern technology and CIA security briefings which Bush ignored.
carry on
Pat said...
Bart, I suggest you ignore Shrinkers
Shrinkers is living in a delusional land with his expectation that the Democrats will pick up a dozen seats in the House.
Especially since every major political analyst forecasts losses for the Democrats in the House. Including Nate here.
It's part of his continued blind support for the far left, barring any relation to reality or consideration for actual discussion of policy. It's like if there are 99 points against him, and 1 that vaguely favors his position, he'll cling to that exclusively, and ignore every other point. Reasonable debate involves give and take on points. There's none of that with him.
Bart, his recent discussion with you on the links is a perfect example. He clings to the point that "2 of the links don't work" while ignoring the rest of the "Freepers" sites. From my point, a simple viewing of the links brings up a NYTimes link that proves your point fine.
I'd ignore Shrinkers in the future if I were you.
~~~~~~~~~~
Pat writes a (6) paragraph post telling someone else to ignore shrinkers lol
Classic!
shrinkers, I believe Pat has a fetish for you ;)
Again, the best way to avoid a poster is to, in fact, totally avoid said poster.
This is not rocket science! :)
btw, BDP is a big boy and can make his own decisions w/out outside assistance ...
Yeah, shiloh, I think Pat's really in love, and doesn't want BdP to steal me away. :-)
wv: panzi - you can't make this stuff up.
Wow, so the people spewing out "DemocRAT party" "Porkulus" "blame America first" and other shit are offended by a label they came up with?
You know, I don't think people would use the term "teabagger" as much if it didn't get the far right so mad.
You're wrong, Jacob. I'd use "teabagger" no matter what, just because I like the term.
Post a Comment