[besson3c]

This Maddow tour through the CPAC conference booths sort of puts my finger on something I've been sensing for a while now, and that is a complete incoherence to the message coming from the right.

Maddow At CPAC 2010 Conference (VIDEO)


What is the message of the Republican party? In a straw poll at CPAC Ron Paul won. The book about the tea party movement that Maddow shows in this clip shows more bat shit crazy signs from people comparing Obama to Hitler and the like. You have the Oath Keepers group, the "we came unarmed this time" group that Maddow also spoke about, and people that are militant or at least unwelcoming towards gays. You have Dick Cheney saying things that Petraeus disagrees with (and Cheney is wildly unpopular anyway), Michael Steele is unpopular, Sarah Palin is viewed as underqualified. You have Beck saying that Republicans should forget this idea of having a giant tent, weird claims about Obama being arrogant and apologizing for this country (the latter what Liz Cheney said), an election past where McCain was selected in part because he was viewed as somebody who could bridge the partisan gap.

The point is, each of these people seem to stress different things and want to do wildly different things to the party. The only thing that people seem to agree upon is that Obama sucks, but you can't change America's direction alone with just that point of agreement, you still need coherent ideas and a coherent plan.

Could 2012 be an opportunity for a third party, perhaps the tea party, to team up? Right now the choices seem to be a president that people mostly feel meh about for the time being (although it wouldn't be historically unprecedented for him to make a political comeback), and a massive incoherent mess.

We also have polls know that show that Americans overwhelmingly feel that government as a whole is broken, and a great explanation from Evan Bayh as to why he is leaving the Senate which illustrates many of the problems with government as a whole.

It will be interesting to see where all of this is going, there does seem to be a tremendous amount of fragmentation in consensus and voice in politics right now.

No need to turn the thread into a rant about Obama, if that is your inclination. We get it.

[Orion27]

Simple. No!

[Dork.]

You summed up the Republican's problems perfectly in your post, when you wondered what the Republican's message is then got muddled with Tea Party stuff. They are not the same, and if you look into the Tea Party movement in detail you'll find that they're just as pissed with the Republicans than they are with the Democrats. While you will have Conservative candidates benefitting from the movement (like in Massachusetts), there will also be challenges to Republican candidates who are deemed to be not fiscally conservative enough, which could split the vote and force Democratic victories in unusual places. Republicans can't just assume the Tea Party folks will be helpful to them unless they can integrate their ideas in a cohesive fashion.

Obama won the last election by a healthy margin. In order to make gains, the Republicans need to convince some folks who voted for Obama in 2008 that their interests are better suited by voting for Republicans in 2010. They can't do that by pointing at Obama and yelling "Socialist" at the top of their lungs, or by threatening to hang Democratic senators. And while the Fiscal Conservative / Taxed Enough Already mantra may be powerful and something that folks are listening to, I'm not at all sure how well it will play to the centrists that the Republicans need to gain more votes.

[Big Mac]

You don't think Scott Brown's election is any indicator of a larger trend?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You don't think Scott Brown's election is any indicator of a larger trend?

I don't think the trend is guaranteed to benefit mainstream Republican candidates, and could be harmful to them.

[Big Mac]

He ran and won on a mostly conservative platform in what is supposedly a very liberal state. I don't think that bodes well for Democrats, and the recent string of Dem retirements strengthens my view.

[ebuddy]

Okay, your first problem is listening to Maddow. Seriously, this would be no different than me tuning in to Rush Limbaugh at a Democratic convention. Maddow is certainly not about presenting a flattering image of Republicans or conservatives.

For example, what exactly is the Democratic Mission Statement these days?

The CPAC statement and the overarching sentiment coming out of groups like the Tea Party movement and even the Republican party of late, is a stricter adherence to the limitations outlined in the Constitution; simplifying, reducing, and controlling government. Period. No more, no less. Republicans are moving to find another Republican to run against John McCain for example because Conservatives are becoming increasingly vocal in the party and they want a smaller tent. They've not been able to count on the Republican party for some time and have shown a willingness to either not vote at all, or to vote for the obscure candidate who does hold more true to Constitutional principles like a Ron Paul.

The message is much more clear if you're not intent on marginalizing it or shedding as negative a light as possible on it.

[BadKosh]

ebuddy is correct. Maddow is as flawed and biased as Besson3c, and with the same blinders and emotional evaluations. Why are there SO MANY emotion driven Besson threads?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay, your first problem is listening to Maddow. Seriously, this would be no different than me tuning in to Rush Limbaugh at a Democratic convention. Maddow is certainly not about presenting a flattering image of Republicans or conservatives.

I used the Maddow piece only to provide some examples of what sorts of booths and representation was at CPAC. You could have ignored all of this and my point would still be the same. You'll notice that I provided a whole slew of examples, although I should have expected that some people will pick them apart one by one rather than looking at the larger point.

For example, what exactly is the Democratic Mission Statement these days?

I don't know because I don't dial in to what the Democrats say any more than I do anybody else. However, Obama sounds far more coherent than anything else I've heard. Even if there is stuff he says I disagree with, it is still coherent and focused.

The CPAC statement and the overarching sentiment coming out of groups like the Tea Party movement and even the Republican party of late, is a stricter adherence to the limitations outlined in the Constitution; simplifying, reducing, and controlling government. Period. No more, no less. Republicans are moving to find another Republican to run against John McCain for example because Conservatives are becoming increasingly vocal in the party and they want a smaller tent. They've not been able to count on the Republican party for some time and have shown a willingness to either not vote at all, or to vote for the obscure candidate who does hold more true to Constitutional principles like a Ron Paul.

Do you really think that those crazy people holding signs comparing Obama to Hitler know a goddamn thing about the constitution? I think much of this is just a sort of generic crying out for yesteryear, because yesteryear is always better, simpler, had fewer problems, etc. I've yet to hear how yesteryear solves some of today's problems with specifics such as dealing with the banks, bad mortgages, globalization, etc. Yesteryear provides plenty of broad philosophy and general tactics which may or may not be applicable to today, but is short on specifics.

Besides, while what you wrote *is* coherent, I'm not entirely sure this is the consensus. What I hear more often are arguments about socialism, freedom, being un-American, and other pretty vague and incoherent arguments. It makes my jaw drop when I hear this very thing from politicians we are supposed to be taking seriously too.

[AKcrab]

Why didn't you attempt to answer his question?

[Big Mac]

I was hoping everyone would choose to ignore this thread given who besson chooses to take his talking points from, but oh well. . .

In truth there is some tension between camps within the Republican tent. Big government Republicans who are mainly focused on social conservatism are being overshadowed by Tea Party fiscal conservatives, libertarians, Constitutionalists and the like. CPAC's straw poll was won by Ron Paul because of his libertarian appeal, but even within the small government wing of the Republican Party there's the understanding that Paul isn't a viable candidate especially on national security issues, which is why CPAC was shocked by the outcome of its own straw poll. There is a struggle to define the specifics of modern Republican conservatism right now, certainly. But most all Republicans and most all Tea Party goers will support any Republican over Obama in 2012, you can be sure.

By the way, besson, most of the Obama-Hitler signs come from the Larouche drones, which is about as far from Tea Party as one can get. (They fault Obama because he's not left-wing enough, yet they mock him as a National Socialist for shock value. Go figure.) They're popping up at conservative gatherings to try to give the Tea Party and other conservative groups a bad name.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He ran and won on a mostly conservative platform in what is supposedly a very liberal state. I don't think that bodes well for Democrats, and the recent string of Dem retirements strengthens my view.

I think Brown won more out of dissatisfaction with the Health Care bill. Massachusetts is in a unique position, because they already have a lot of what the bill would have implemented. I think folks in Massachusetts were convinced the bill would not give them a lot of benefit, but would cost them a lot.

All the decent Democrats are retiring because they realize their Congressional leadership is a joke. They have large majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and still can't get their agenda through. You mean to tell me they couldn't have crafted a Health Care bill that at least one Republican could have supported? They would have had a far better bill if they were able to get 10 Republican Senators on board, even if they lost seven or eight of the more liberal Democrats in the progress.

Sometimes, I feel like Obama is the only adult in the room on the Democratic side.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I was hoping everyone would choose to ignore this thread given who besson chooses to take his talking points from, but oh well. . .

Perhaps you missed this:

I used the Maddow piece only to provide some examples of what sorts of booths and representation was at CPAC. You could have ignored all of this and my point would still be the same. You'll notice that I provided a whole slew of examples, although I should have expected that some people will pick them apart one by one rather than looking at the larger point.

By the way, besson, most of the Obama-Hitler signs come from the Larouche drones, which about as far from Tea Party as one can get. They're popping up there to try to give the Tea Party a bad name.

I'm not sure many of them even know who Larouche is. I suspect that many of them are just not terribly bright in a generic sort of sense. Both political parties have no shortage of the not-terribly-bright, the main difference this time seems to be that these sorts of people are getting national attention.

Don't get defensive at this, I'm not at all saying that there aren't people on the left with idiot ideas and opinions too.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think Brown won more out of dissatisfaction with the Health Care bill. Massachusetts is in a unique position, because they already have a lot of what the bill would have implemented. I think folks in Massachusetts were convinced the bill would not give them a lot of benefit, but would cost them a lot.

All the decent Democrats are retiring because they realize their Congressional leadership is a joke. They have large majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and still can't get their agenda through. You mean to tell me they couldn't have crafted a Health Care bill that at least one Republican could have supported? They would have had a far better bill if they were able to get 10 Republican Senators on board, even if they lost seven or eight of the more liberal Democrats in the progress.

Sometimes, I feel like Obama is the only adult in the room on the Democratic side.

The Evan Bayh article about why he is leaving the Senate *has* to be a pretty common sentiment for the very reasons you've cited. Very little is getting done on either side, and this is largely because of political games, fundraising, lobby connections, tactical obstructionism, etc. There is no relationship between hard work and accomplishments in politics (positive or not).

I can't imagine something more frustrating than that. I mean, having people read your bill and giving reasons for voting against it is one thing, simply saying "no" just because is another.

[ironknee]

funny how instead of answering the question they just point to the black president

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

funny how instead of answering the question they just point to the black president

Do you really think that Obama's blackness is relevant to this? I think they would be doing the same thing to some degree no matter who was elected to office on the Democratic side. Maybe to a lesser (or even greater extent), but I don't think that one can pinpoint this particular variable.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I used the Maddow piece only to provide some examples of what sorts of booths and representation was at CPAC. You could have ignored all of this and my point would still be the same. You'll notice that I provided a whole slew of examples, although I should have expected that some people will pick them apart one by one rather than looking at the larger point.

That's my absolute main point of contention with what you posted. That's exactly what Maddow's piece and your subsequent "take" did; picked something apart hit by hit rather than looking at the larger point. How is this immediately apparent? The main focus of CPAC were its speakers and speeches. In fairness to you, I watched the entire video to make sure I wasn't flying off half-cocked and sure enough if she didn't once allow a conservative to speak for himself or herself. Not one clip of one word uttered by anyone there. Unless of course you're absolutely convinced by the (make no mistake) exclusively Democratic sources of news you're citing, that there are no posters of prominent liberal voices at a liberal conference, or a calendar of a prominent liberal figure, or a moron selling sensationalism, etc, etc... I'm not.

I don't know because I don't dial in to what the Democrats say any more than I do anybody else. However, Obama sounds far more coherent than anything else I've heard. Even if there is stuff he says I disagree with, it is still coherent and focused.

You provided a Huffington Post link of a Maddow hit piece on CPAC. I'd say you're dialing in to what the Democrats have to say pretty damned effectively. I don't think you're really availing yourself of any media that would give a focused and coherent conservative a voice quite frankly. At least not evidenced by any of this.

Do you really think that those crazy people holding signs comparing Obama to Hitler know a goddamn thing about the constitution?

I'd more argue that their tactics suck. Those crazy people are everywhere you go my man. Everywhere. Always have been. I could see how the more one knows of the Constitution, the more angered one might be at our degree of regard for it. I'd also be willing to bet more on a conservative opposed to action in Iraq, being able to point to it on a map.

I think much of this is just a sort of generic crying out for yesteryear, because yesteryear is always better, simpler, had fewer problems, etc. I've yet to hear how yesteryear solves some of today's problems with specifics such as dealing with the banks, bad mortgages, globalization, etc. Yesteryear provides plenty of broad philosophy and general tactics which may or may not be applicable to today, but is short on specifics.

A choice between yesteryear and yestercentury is pretty easy for me, but I won't get distracted.

Dealing with banks? A good place to start would be to not enable them. I've never liked the practice of giving to them with one hand for a vote, then smacking them with the other for another vote. Bad mortgage? Sucks for those that entered into a bad deal. How many generations do you suppose it'd take for people to truly grasp this concept and relent to its lessons? Easing symptoms does not solve problems. Globalization? egadz...

I wonder why you present these lowest common denominators as if they're somehow unique to Republicans or Conservatives. You then cite someone who felt it necessary to shape what was spoken instead of allowing them to say one word for themselves. IMO, either you're not availing yourself of any conservative outlet of information to know that a great deal of thoughts, ideals, speeches, academia, and specifics are coming from conservative voices or you just can't stand the sound of them. It seems the latter.

Besides, while what you wrote *is* coherent, I'm not entirely sure this is the consensus. What I hear more often are arguments about socialism, freedom, being un-American, and other pretty vague and incoherent arguments. It makes my jaw drop when I hear this very thing from politicians we are supposed to be taking seriously too.

Do the arguments about socialism for example; bother you because socialism is generally harmless or that there are no signs of it in the US system?

There are measurable aspects of freedom anywhere from economic to property. Just because you disagree with the perception of these many people doesn't mean there aren't a great deal of specifics behind their complaint. Maddow didn't open any of the pamphlets and I suspect you wouldn't either. This is why I say their tactics suck.

The rest of this seems awfully focused on sensationalism and shows more concern for partisan popularity contests than the actions of leadership and the direction of the country. As you say, lacking specifics. For example, you stated that you didn't know what the Democratic Mission Statement is.

Why are you more concerned about the Mission statement of the Republican party than the Mission Statement of the party of your elected leadership?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's my absolute main point of contention with what you posted. That's exactly what Maddow's piece and your subsequent "take" did; picked something apart hit by hit rather than looking at the larger point. How is this immediately apparent? The main focus of CPAC were its speakers and speeches. In fairness to you, I watched the entire video to make sure I wasn't flying off half-cocked and sure enough if she didn't once allow a conservative to speak for himself or herself. Not one clip of one word uttered by anyone there. Unless of course you're absolutely convinced by the (make no mistake) exclusively Democratic sources of news you're citing, that there are no posters of prominent liberal voices at a liberal conference, or a calendar of a prominent liberal figure, or a moron selling sensationalism, etc, etc... I'm not.

You're getting distracted. I'm not saying that the Maddow piece provides a complete picture (although I did also post a Bill O'Reilly clip in the "Bashing Obama" thread if you really feel like dissecting another clip that could be used to provide additional examples). I'm not even saying that my perception of the complete picture is accurate, or that I have a finger on the pulse of anything.

Please point to me where I can find some mainstream Republican voice that you feel represents the consensus felt by the Right? I'm not even saying that a lack of consensus is a bad thing, I don't expect people to be march and file robots, I'm just saying that the depth of different opinions makes the overall picture incoherent to me.

You have Limbaugh, Beck, Steele, Palin, Ron Paul, Hannity, O'Reilly, and on and on who often have wildly different ideas as to what we ought to do and who all have their little fan entourage, but also do not clearly represent a consensus view.

You provided a Huffington Post link of a Maddow hit piece on CPAC. I'd say you're dialing in to what the Democrats have to say pretty damned effectively. I don't think you're really availing yourself of any media that would give a focused and coherent conservative a voice quite frankly. At least not evidenced by any of this.

More distraction.

Dealing with banks? A good place to start would be to not enable them. I've never liked the practice of giving to them with one hand for a vote, then smacking them with the other for another vote. Bad mortgage? Sucks for those that entered into a bad deal. How many generations do you suppose it'd take for people to truly grasp this concept and relent to its lessons? Easing symptoms does not solve problems. Globalization? egadz...

More distraction.

I wonder why you present these lowest common denominators as if they're somehow unique to Republicans or Conservatives. You then cite someone who felt it necessary to shape what was spoken instead of allowing them to say one word for themselves. IMO, either you're not availing yourself of any conservative outlet of information to know that a great deal of thoughts, ideals, speeches, academia, and specifics are coming from conservative voices or you just can't stand the sound of them. It seems the latter.

I'm not interested in dissecting my own bias or putting myself under the microscope. I'm fully aware of my bias.

Do the arguments about socialism for example; bother you because socialism is generally harmless or that there are no signs of it in the US system?

They bother me because they are inaccurate and incoherent, and these terms are not adequately defined to really mean a whole lot (e.g. public education is cool, but public health instantly puts us squarely in the socialist category).

The rest of this seems awfully focused on sensationalism and shows more concern for partisan popularity contests than the actions of leadership and the direction of the country. As you say, lacking specifics. For example, you stated that you didn't know what the Democratic Mission Statement is.

More distraction.

Why are you more concerned about the Mission statement of the Republican party than the Mission Statement of the party of your elected leadership?

This has been explained, and is also another distraction.

[BadKosh]

So we should just consider the source and move on?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you really think that Obama's blackness is relevant to this? I think they would be doing the same thing to some degree no matter who was elected to office on the Democratic side. Maybe to a lesser (or even greater extent), but I don't think that one can pinpoint this particular variable.

yep... i think you give them too much credit

i i do agree with you that no matter who was in office, they would still be tea bagging each other... but being black makes them hate more

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You have Limbaugh, Beck, Steele, Palin, Ron Paul, Hannity, O'Reilly, and on and on who often have wildly different ideas as to what we ought to do and who all have their little fan entourage, but also do not clearly represent a consensus view.

Did you notice that only one of the folks on the list actually hold an elective office right now? The worst thing that can happen to the Republican party is if it gets defined by the pundits, because the pundits answer to ratings (and not voters). The pundits would gladly throw the Republican party under the bus if it will increase their ratings.

[spacefreak]

Republicans represent a lot of different lines of thinking. Democrats seem to have a strict list of positions that all followers must adhere to or risk alienation.

I'm not surprised to see some of these oddball booths. Conservatives are all for freedom of speech, right? I'm sure some kooky eco-groups, PETA, Planned Parenthood... heck, even Code Pink would have been granted a booth had they purchased one. That's how conservatives roll. Doesn't meant they all agree with each booth's particular message.

I doubt a liberal showcase would allow oil companies and the NRA into their halls. They won't even allow Joe Lieberman to attend.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Republicans represent a lot of different lines of thinking. Democrats seem to have a strict list of positions that all followers must adhere to or risk alienation.

I disagree. I would say that the Democratic ideas and leadership were extremely fragmented during the Bush era just as the Conservative ideas and leadership are now. In fact, I'd wager a guess that Democratic ideas are perpetually fragmented more so than Conservative ones because we don't have the same number of ideas to really rally around like the Conservatives do in gun rights, being against climate change theories, abortion, same sex marriage, etc.

I'm not surprised to see some of these oddball booths. Conservatives are all for freedom of speech, right? I'm sure some kooky eco-groups, PETA, Planned Parenthood... heck, even Code Pink would have been granted a booth had they purchased one. That's how conservatives roll. Doesn't meant they all agree with each booth's particular message.

True, although I'd amend this to say that *Americans* are for freedom of speech. I've yet to see any serious population of Americans rally against freedom of speech. My point about the oddball groups is that they seem to be getting an unprecedented amount of national attention these days.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please point to me where I can find some mainstream Republican voice that you feel represents the consensus felt by the Right? I'm not even saying that a lack of consensus is a bad thing, I don't expect people to be march and file robots, I'm just saying that the depth of different opinions makes the overall picture incoherent to me.

Did you watch CPAC? Those are many of the conservative voices and they have a pretty coherent message. There were many speakers and speeches. If you're curious, you'll watch.

See Dork pointed this out brilliantly. Only one of the names you mentioned is an actual elected official. Everyone else is a talking head. You're distracted by the partisan popularity contest. Tell me, what do you feel is the consensus view of your prominent Democratic voices such as Maddow, Matthews, Stewart, Colbert, Moore, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and on an on?

You have Limbaugh, Beck, Steele, Palin, Ron Paul, Hannity, O'Reilly, and on and on who often have wildly different ideas as to what we ought to do and who all have their little fan entourage, but also do not clearly represent a consensus view.

Why should they? You can't site a consensus view for any of the others I mentioned. I asked you, you said you didn't know.

I'm serious besson, why are you more concerned about the Mission statement of the Republican party than the Mission Statement of the party of your elected leadership?

More distraction.

No, these are the specifics you ask for, but hate to hear.

More distraction.

More of those pesky specifics.

I'm not interested in dissecting my own bias or putting myself under the microscope. I'm fully aware of my bias.

I don't think you're nearly aware of the degree of it. That's what I'm here for. I'm interested in dissecting why one would be more interested in what someone says on the radio than what his leadership is saying and doing in Congress and the White House? It's a simple question besson.

They bother me because they are inaccurate and incoherent, and these terms are not adequately defined to really mean a whole lot (e.g. public education is cool, but public health instantly puts us squarely in the socialist category).

That's because you're not paying attention. Public education is not "cool". We spend more per child than almost any other industrialized nation combined yet rank below 15th in math and science for example. Not cool. Socialism is generally understood to be the centralization of resource and resource allocation be it education, health care, retirement funding, care for the poor, etc... Things like roads, police, fire department, paramedics, etc... that others like to bring up are nothing more than smokescreens as in the overall scheme of Federal centralization is the complaint, not autonomous state governance provisions. The complaints about socialism are not that it may start to exist in this country, it is that it already exists in this country, continues to grow; faster or slower contingent upon the Administration, and has not solved any of the problems it has been designed to solve. Wealth disparity, poverty, the ill effects of capitalism, etc...

You've not really shown that you're interested in an adequate definition of anything though besson. Specifics, details, definitions... we've been over this a thousand times. These are the things that end conversations with you. I'm not trying to be rude here, but that's my perception having discussed many things with you over the past several years. In fact, you brought up a very similar topic to this quite a while ago and I took the same line of reasoning with you then. You were curious what the overall message of Republicans was and gave some examples of prominent voices of the right, I turned it around and you couldn't answer. You're doing it again here.

More distraction.

More specifics. You ask for them, but don't want them.

This has been explained, and is also another distraction.

Please post a link to this explanation. In fairness to you, I will read that too although please don't pain me with more ambiguous partisan hit points. That was brutal. Give me specifics, give me definitions, give me the consensus view of Democrats please. Then tell me why you're more concerned with what Republicans talking heads are doing or thinking than your elected Democratic leadership, who seem to be all over the place right now.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Did you notice that only one of the folks on the list actually hold an elective office right now? The worst thing that can happen to the Republican party is if it gets defined by the pundits, because the pundits answer to ratings (and not voters). The pundits would gladly throw the Republican party under the bus if it will increase their ratings.

In case you haven't been listening, the Republicans have already been thrown under the bus.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is the message of the Republican party?

The Republican Party has many messages and while they all may seem different they are basically the same - paint the democrats in the worst light possible.

So far they've actually been doing a pretty good job at it, but a lot of that is due to democrat miss-steps.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

See Dork pointed this out brilliantly. Only one of the names you mentioned is an actual elected official. Everyone else is a talking head. You're distracted by the partisan popularity contest. Tell me, what do you feel is the consensus view of your prominent Democratic voices such as Maddow, Matthews, Stewart, Colbert, Moore, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and on an on?

At least you included some actual elected officials there. That's probably because you could remember their names. Ask the typical American to name two Republicans in Congress (other than those who may be representing them), and I bet you the majority of people would fail once they got past John McCain. All the energetic Republicans seem to be bolting for the Tea Parties, and trying to find more conservative candidates for primary challenges. Is there anyone who actually wants to lead the Republican party anymore? Or are the Republicans going to let Beck and Limbaugh lead them? At least the Democrats have people willing to lead them, even if trying to unite Democrats on any agenda is like herding cats these days.

Maybe Sarah Palin is smarter than we give her credit for, since she can have more influence as a pundit than as an elected official.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think Brown won more out of dissatisfaction with the Health Care bill. Massachusetts is in a unique position, because they already have a lot of what the bill would have implemented. I think folks in Massachusetts were convinced the bill would not give them a lot of benefit, but would cost them a lot.

I disagree. Even with MA already having healthcare Coakley was still the front runner for most of the campaign (by a large margin) and she didn't make any changes to her position on healthcare that would have caused a sudden massive shift against her.

In my opinion there were a few factors. First off Coakley didn't run a very good campaign while Brown ran a pretty good one. Not shaking hands after a ball game because it was cold out? Bad form. Trying to push politics on MLK day? Bad form. But this is still MA we're talking about, so that matters very little, she still should have won.

It's what was going on in congress that I think had the biggest impact on the MA elections and on the population as a whole. Specifically giving special treatment and even exemptions to buy votes is just not something that Americans want their politicians to be doing - they are sick of it. And when one state and labor unions were given special treatement and exemptions a week or two before the elections, it got a lot of people riled up to say the least.

All the decent Democrats are retiring because they realize their Congressional leadership is a joke. They have large majorities in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and still can't get their agenda through.

Yes and no. I agree the democratic leadership in congress has been a disaster and it's set the stage where democrats are going to have a very hard time winning seats in the mid-terms. But I don't think the democrats that are retiring are doing so simply because of Pelosi and Reid, I think they recognize that trying to win right now is going to be extremely hard and they don't want to deal with a huge battle for what at least right now looks like a sure loss.

You mean to tell me they couldn't have crafted a Health Care bill that at least one Republican could have supported?

The problem is they didn't even try to get republican support - instead they opted to pay off democratic hold-outs with special deals that made a lot of people really mad.

They would have had a far better bill if they were able to get 10 Republican Senators on board, even if they lost seven or eight of the more liberal Democrats in the progress.

Agreed.

Sometimes, I feel like Obama is the only adult in the room on the Democratic side.

In my opinion Obama should have had a lot more input into the process a long time ago and courted and worked with the more centerist republicans. But when the Democrats simply shut out the republicans like they did, they can't expect any support at all from that side.

And when they suddenly lose 1 seat in an upset election in MA, their refusal to even try to work with repbulicans bites them in the butt hard - it killed healthcare.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

In my opinion Obama should have had a lot more input into the process a long time ago and courted and worked with the more centerist republicans. But when the Democrats simply shut out the republicans like they did, they can't expect any support at all from that side.

And when they suddenly lose 1 seat in an upset election in MA, their refusal to even try to work with repbulicans bites them in the butt hard - it killed healthcare.

I remember reading shortly after Obama took office that, wearing his "other hat" of a Constitutional Law professor, he had a problem with how involved the Bush adminsitration was in crafting legislation, and promised that he would take a more "hands-off" approach, establishing a vision but letting Congress fill in the details. That didn't quite work out the way he hoped. It's telling that Obama is taking ownership of the process now, releasing a new Health Care blueprint today and having direct discussions with Republicans regarding it. Health Care reform is not dead yet, but if it passes it will be specifically because Obama made the Democratic leadership listen to Republicans.

You've gotta admit, if he pulls that off, that really will be Change We Can Believe In.

(I am not ignoring your points about the special election, BTW. They are all very good and I have nothing to add...)

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

funny how instead of answering the question they just point to the black president

Kinda like how the Left protested Bush not the war, drew him as a monkey with a lapdog, etc. instead of telling people what to DO DIFFERENTLY. Yeah, like that.

I've missed all of the criticism associated with the man's race. It's his politics that seem in question. More succinctly, the patronage politics of Reid and Pelosi -- we still don't know what Obama's plans are, he's still bogged down in being the b*tch for Congress, both houses. Whatever "mandate" he had is gone thanks to all of the "you-owe-me-bigtime" types.

Back to the OP:
The CONSERVATIVE message is the same as always: individual liberty & self-reliance, small government & taxes, secure borders & strong military. The Republican message is similar, but corrupted by Bush and immediacy on some points. I'd argue, though, that there's still enough of a correlation there that the Democrats (and even what Left is left) had better watch out.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I remember reading shortly after Obama took office that, wearing his "other hat" of a Constitutional Law professor, he had a problem with how involved the Bush adminsitration was in crafting legislation, and promised that he would take a more "hands-off" approach, establishing a vision but letting Congress fill in the details. That didn't quite work out the way he hoped. It's telling that Obama is taking ownership of the process now, releasing a new Health Care blueprint today and having direct discussions with Republicans regarding it. Health Care reform is not dead yet, but if it passes it will be specifically because Obama made the Democratic leadership listen to Republicans.

You've gotta admit, if he pulls that off, that really will be Change We Can Believe In.

(I am not ignoring your points about the special election, BTW. They are all very good and I have nothing to add...)

Obama's Health Care Proposal is DOA. And if voted on by parliamentary maneuver
Americans will resist. By the way, what ever happened to the focus on Jobs?

Boehner: New Obama Plan Doubles Down on Failure, Puts Summit in Peril...
SWALLOW: White House Warns Republicans: We'll Pass It With 51 VOTES...
PROPOSAL SUMMARY USES WORD 'TAX' 35 TIMES...
'Increase in Fees on Brand Name Pharmaceuticals'...
Broaden 'Tax Base for High-Income Taxpayers'...
Orders 'Comprehensive Database' On Health Claims...
FORCED: 'Raises percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured'...
BACKDOOR FIX: Healthcare 'Funds will be transferred to the Social Security Trust' if necessary...
White House Endorses Sen. Landrieu's 'Louisiana Purchase'...

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I remember reading shortly after Obama took office that, wearing his "other hat" of a Constitutional Law professor, he had a problem with how involved the Bush adminsitration was in crafting legislation, and promised that he would take a more "hands-off" approach, establishing a vision but letting Congress fill in the details. That didn't quite work out the way he hoped.

I think he assumed less juvinality and partisanship from congress. Silly Obama.

It's telling that Obama is taking ownership of the process now, releasing a new Health Care blueprint today and having direct discussions with Republicans regarding it. Health Care reform is not dead yet, but if it passes it will be specifically because Obama made the Democratic leadership listen to Republicans.

I think Pelosi and Reid have so aggressively alienated the Republicans (and even most Americans with their deal cutting) that it's now all but impossible for Obama to pull that rabbit out of his hat.

In fact, I think it's now become a rally point for Republicans to get re-elected by energizing the base and even pulling the center to the right overall, which is far more important to politicians then passing a bill.

You've gotta admit, if he pulls that off, that really will be Change We Can Believe In.

I would be amazed. There is just to much momentum going the wrong way at this point for him to save it.

[Osedax]

White House unveils compromise health care bill - CNN.com

Here is the problem with the Healthcare bill past and present:
The Obama administration raised the stakes in the health care debate Monday, releasing a new blueprint that seeks to bridge the gap between measures passed by the Senate and House of Representatives last year.

Both the House and Senate plans were drafted by Democrats with little or no effective input from Republicans so bridging these two plans together isn't really bipartisan at all. And that's the problem - the've never been bipartisan. They've been one side ignores the other then gets upset when the people they ignored don't vote for it.

And if Obama does push the 51 vote proceedure, he probably won't be able to pass that either, and if he does, he'll destroy the democratic party - with just a few exceptions it would be near impossible to get re-elected as a democrat if you voted yes to pass healthcare with proceedural tricks. So most will either simply vote no or, if it does pass, they'll pay for it in the elections.

Even Reid's seat is on the line and it's far less likely that far less seniour democrats are going to take this risk.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Both the House and Senate plans were drafted by Democrats with little or no effective input from Republicans so bridging these two plans together isn't really bipartisan at all. And that's the problem - the've never been bipartisan. They've been one side ignores the other then gets upset when the people they ignored don't vote for it.

The Senate bill was drafted largely by the "Gang of Six" which included the following Republicans:

Michael Enzi (R) - Wyoming
Charles Grassley (R) - Iowa
Olympia Snowe (R) - Maine

It's amazing that this BS claim continues to get repeated with a straight face. It is simply NOT TRUE that the Healthcare Legislation was drafted w/o Republican input. The reality is that it was drafted from the beginning with Republican input and then the Republicans unanimously voted against their own legislation anyway ... even AFTER all of the the Democrats threw the public option, the Medicare Expansion, and national Health Insurance exchanges under the bus to appease the Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Again, the Gang of Six consisted of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. Can't get anymore "bi-partisan" than that.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Ever heard the term RINO?

Who are the Republicans in the house that worked on their bill?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Senate bill was drafted largely by the "Gang of Six" which included the following Republicans:

Michael Enzi (R) - Wyoming
Charles Grassley (R) - Iowa
Olympia Snowe (R) - Maine

It's amazing that this BS claim continues to get repeated with a straight face. It is simply NOT TRUE that the Healthcare Legislation was drafted w/o Republican input. The reality is that it was drafted from the beginning with Republican input and then the Republicans unanimously voted against their own legislation anyway ... even AFTER all of the the Democrats threw the public option, the Medicare Expansion, and national Health Insurance exchanges under the bus to appease the Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Again, the Gang of Six consisted of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. Can't get anymore "bi-partisan" than that.

OAW

My understanding is that the bills that came out of the committees were drafted with at least some Republican input. Then Reid basically cherry-picked the stuff he liked, discarded a lot of the Republican contributions, and then presented that to the full Senate.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

White House unveils compromise health care bill - CNN.com

Here is the problem with the Healthcare bill past and present:
The Obama administration raised the stakes in the health care debate Monday, releasing a new blueprint that seeks to bridge the gap between measures passed by the Senate and House of Representatives last year.

Both the House and Senate plans were drafted by Democrats with little or no effective input from Republicans so bridging these two plans together isn't really bipartisan at all. And that's the problem - the've never been bipartisan. They've been one side ignores the other then gets upset when the people they ignored don't vote for it.

And if Obama does push the 51 vote proceedure, he probably won't be able to pass that either, and if he does, he'll destroy the democratic party - with just a few exceptions it would be near impossible to get re-elected as a democrat if you voted yes to pass healthcare with proceedural tricks. So most will either simply vote no or, if it does pass, they'll pay for it in the elections.

Even Reid's seat is on the line and it's far less likely that far less seniour democrats are going to take this risk.

Obama is using this bill as a "starting point" for negotiations. He is asking Republicans for their input, but making sure they understand what his position is up front.

I think he believes there is enough support for the concept of Health Care reform, and that the current problems are more due to Congressional handling of the issue than with a lack of support for the concept itself. He will ask Republicans very publically for their input, and if they refuse to give any constructive input, he will accuse them of being obstructive for purely political reasons and hope the country goes along with him.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Kinda like how the Left protested Bush not the war, drew him as a monkey with a lapdog, etc. instead of telling people what to DO DIFFERENTLY. Yeah, like that.

I've missed all of the criticism associated with the man's race. It's his politics that seem in question. More succinctly, the patronage politics of Reid and Pelosi -- we still don't know what Obama's plans are, he's still bogged down in being the b*tch for Congress, both houses. Whatever "mandate" he had is gone thanks to all of the "you-owe-me-bigtime" types.

Back to the OP:
The CONSERVATIVE message is the same as always: individual liberty & self-reliance, small government & taxes, secure borders & strong military. The Republican message is similar, but corrupted by Bush and immediacy on some points. I'd argue, though, that there's still enough of a correlation there that the Democrats (and even what Left is left) had better watch out.

see?

[Shaddim]

Maddow is a stupid cow, so who cares?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Maddow is a stupid cow, so who cares?

Hopefully third time is a charm!

I used the Maddow piece only to provide some examples of what sorts of booths and representation was at CPAC. You could have ignored all of this and my point would still be the same. You'll notice that I provided a whole slew of examples, although I should have expected that some people will pick them apart one by one rather than looking at the larger point.

[Shaddim]

I tried watching that, but I couldn't get beyond the mooing and bovine flatulence.

As for the Repub mission statement, it's "we're against whatever Obama is for". The Dems, on the other hand, are "we're completely useless and can't do a damned thing, even when we control the entire federal government". Both are pathetic.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Senate bill was drafted largely by the "Gang of Six" which included the following Republicans:

Michael Enzi (R) - Wyoming
Charles Grassley (R) - Iowa
Olympia Snowe (R) - Maine

It's amazing that this BS claim continues to get repeated with a straight face. It is simply NOT TRUE that the Healthcare Legislation was drafted w/o Republican input.

Are you kidding?
Baucus Health-Care Bill Draws Little Support - BusinessWeek

The $856 billion proposal for national health-care reform that Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) unveiled on Sept. 16 is the most moderate and the least expensive of any proposal to emerge from Congress thus far—the result of months of negotiations.
...
Despite making numerous concessions to Republican lawmakers, the proposal did not garner any Republican support, not even from the three senators whom Baucus has been working to win over all summer: Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.), and Olympia Snowe (R-Me.), a moderate who was considered the most likely to support Baucus' proposal.

I can't believe you try to claim with a straight face that this bill was crafted with "Republican input" when no Republicans at all supported it.

The reality is that it was drafted from the beginning with Republican input and then the Republicans unanimously voted against their own legislation anyway ...

Their own legislation?! THE REPUBLICANS NEVER APPROVED IT. How they heck can you call it "their own legislation" when they never approved it?!? That's some twisted sort of logic...

even AFTER all of the the Democrats threw the public option, the Medicare Expansion, and national Health Insurance exchanges under the bus to appease the Republicans and conservative Democrats.

It doesn't matter what you think was conceeded, for the republicans it wasn't a bill they were willing to pass.

Again, the Gang of Six consisted of 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. Can't get anymore "bi-partisan" than that.

You'd have some ground to stand on if Baucus didn't end round the Gang of Six and present his own proposal.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Obama is using this bill as a "starting point" for negotiations. He is asking Republicans for their input, but making sure they understand what his position is up front.

I understand he is using it as a starting point, but it's a starting point that starts on the extreme left, which makes it almost a non-starter for Republicans.

As for Republican input, as I said previously, I think this is a dead horse - I think it's now seen as nothing more then a tool for Republicans to get re-elected in the mid-terms by beating up democrats over it. If the Republicans helped pass healthcare reform, they would completely mitigate what they likely consider their biggest advantage going into the votes.

I think he believes there is enough support for the concept of Health Care reform, and that the current problems are more due to Congressional handling of the issue than with a lack of support for the concept itself.

I don't disagree with Obama that there is still support for some form of healthcare. But I think healthcare is now completely jammed up in the mid-term elections by Republicans that want to use it against Democrats and Democrats that are afraid to vote on it or it will be used against them.

He will ask Republicans very publically for their input, and if they refuse to give any constructive input, he will accuse them of being obstructive for purely political reasons and hope the country goes along with him.

He won't be able to get republicans to vote for his healthcare plan, I think that's pretty much a (not) done deal. As I said, he should have done this 2+ months ago before it became so exceedinly politisized.

And while he can claim they are be obstructive, they can simply claim they don't like the bill as is and for that, they actually do have a lot of support.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As for the Repub mission statement, it's "we're against whatever Obama is for". The Dems, on the other hand, are "we're completely useless and can't do a damned thing, even when we control the entire federal government". Both are pathetic.

Yep. Which is why incumbents on both sides have the lowest ratings ever.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I understand he is using it as a starting point, but it's a starting point that starts on the extreme left, which makes it almost a non-starter for Republicans.

No, the extreme left would be Single Payer. Still, it is to the left of some other very good proposals, but honestly, where else would you expect him to start?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

No, the extreme left would be Single Payer. Still, it is to the left of some other very good proposals, but honestly, where else would you expect him to start?

GOP health-care reform cost: $61 billion, cut deficit $68 billion

This evening, CBO released a preliminary analysis of a substitute amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proposed by Representative John Boehner, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period; it would also slightly reduce federal budget deficits in the following decade, relative to those projected under current law, with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of gross domestic product.
The CBO put the price tag for the GOP plan at $61 billion, a fraction of the $1.05 trillion cost estimate it gave to the House bill that lawmakers are set to vote on this weekend. And the CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans. …

According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.

The GOP plan would have the smallest economic impact on the large group market that serves people working for large businesses that have access to the cheapest coverage. Those premiums would decline by zero to 3 percent, the CBO said.

For the 87% of Americans who have insurance and who overwhelmingly like the system, this is a much better prescription for real cost savings, and without the heavy government intervention that threatens the liberty and economic stability of Americans. The only people disadvantaged by this plan are those pursuing ObamaCare out of ideological animus towards the private market.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

No, the extreme left would be Single Payer. Still, it is to the left of some other very good proposals, but honestly, where else would you expect him to start?

I really didn't expect him to restart this push at all.

But if he's going to restart it, it shouldn't be from where Reid & Pelosi left off, which obviously didn't get the votes... Start with smaller, palatable steps like consumer protection and cutting Medicare / Medicaid costs by cutting frivolous garbage.

https://postvac.com/medicare/

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I really didn't expect him to restart this push at all.

But if he's going to restart it, it shouldn't be from where Reid & Pelosi left off, which obviously didn't get the votes...

Didn't get the votes? It got plenty of votes. If Ted Kennedy were still alive, it would be law right now.

There seem to be a lot of good ideas coming from the Right on this. Why don't they try to work with Obama to get them implemented, so the overall bill os closer to the center than it would have been?

[olePigeon]

Republicans used to be a lot more organized. Democrats are a pretty disorganized group. Will Rogers once said, "I Don't Belong to an Organized Political Party. I'm a Democrat."

I think the Republican Party is breaking down and is become as inefficient as the Democratic Party.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Didn't get the votes? It got plenty of votes. If Ted Kennedy were still alive, it would be law right now.

But that's not where we are any more. And frankly, with the Brown election, a Republican in a massively overwhelmingly Democrat state, actually replacing Ted Kennedy, was a big wake up call for Democrats. If Coakley can lose in MA, they can lose in their far more centered states.

There seem to be a lot of good ideas coming from the Right on this. Why don't they try to work with Obama to get them implemented, so the overall bill os closer to the center than it would have been?

I don't believe the right wants to work with Obama or anyone else on this. First and foremost because it makes for an excellent talking point in the upcomming elections, and to pass it would undo that. And second because it's rather insulting to only start trying to appease and include the Republicans after you find you can't beg, borrow or buy any more votes.

Sure, 3 Republicans were included in some discussions, but all of their concerns were ignored and eventually discarded - they never agreed to anything proposed.