I think Yes, because the base I think Yes, because the base is more energized.
Had the bill been defeated, Democrats would have be demoralized.
The Republicans are demoralized and will just stay home in November.
If Obama continues the PR that he’s so good at, I believe that Democrats can hold onto, perhaps expand their congressional lead this November.
The psychology of politics is like football. You need to have wins in order to keep the fans motivated.
Reality
March 23, 2010 @
3:11 PM
I think a lot of these clowns I think a lot of these clowns get voted out of office in November after this farce.
ucodegen
March 23, 2010 @
3:40 PM
I would have to put no.. I would have to put no.. particularly if the loss of Massachusetts is an example. I think the real cost to the party will show up in about 8 or more years.
The other question would be; can the Republican party capitalize on it… No, if there behavior is any indication. The party heads are so ‘inbred’ that they can’t even focus. The Republican party needs an enema starting at the top and working its way down.
Eugene
March 23, 2010 @
4:04 PM
Thanks to all the effort Thanks to all the effort Republicans put in to vilify the bill, this was a no-win situation. But it’s better to pass the bill and appear socialist, than to fail and appear incompetent.
UCGal
March 23, 2010 @
4:13 PM
I put yes because it would I put yes because it would have been devastatingly bad for the Dems if it had failed.
I think the GOP thinks they can sell the “repeal the bill” thing – but will get burned when people realize that repealing it means that we go back to kids being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, rescission is back, the donut hole for seniors is back… Not a good message for the GOP.
I think Frum got it right with his op-ed the other day. The anti-healthcare fervor is great for right wing talk radio – but bad for the GOP. (Frum was Bush’s speechwriter if you don’t know.)
Quote:but will get burned [quote]but will get burned when people realize that repealing it means that we go back to kids being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, rescission is back, the donut hole for seniors is back… Not a good message for the GOP.[/quote]
The GOP will probably to try to fight the specific provisions they don’t like: keep some or all new insurance regulations, kill the mandate, and kill the subsidies. And they might succeed. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of population understands the concept of “adverse selection”, and any mentions of the concept will be carefully screened by Fox News.
briansd1
March 23, 2010 @
5:18 PM
Eugene wrote:Unfortunately, [quote=Eugene]Unfortunately, only a small percentage of population understands the concept of “adverse selection”, and any mentions of the concept will be carefully screened by Fox News.[/quote]
I wonder if the Fox News’ audience know that Fox is owned by an Australian.
danielwis
March 23, 2010 @
5:20 PM
Are you kidding? A nine Are you kidding? A nine point jump for Obama from one week ago in one of the polls mentioned on the news today?
This is going to unite and motivate the Democratic base. And independents are clearly rallying around this now that it has passed.
Why do you think John Boehner’s orange head almost exploded on Capitol Hill Sunday? This is bad bad bad for the GOP, especially now when people get to see it and feel its benefits, many of which start immediately.
And oh, Granny? That is going to be the laughing stock of the fall elections. No ones Granny is going to get hauled out of bed to meet before a death panel. In fact the donut hole for medicare drug costs start to close this year. Seniors will feel that before election day.
Young people can stay on parents insurance until age 26, starting this year. Recision for health conditions stops this year. Denial of health care for children with pre-existing conditions stops this year. Tax credits for 4 million small businesses starts this year.
The GOP has just passed the high point for 2010. In fact Scott Brown was the high point. November is not going to be nearly the coup they had dreamed. They likely take a hand full of House seats, and maybe 2 or 3 Senate seats, tops. The talk of taking the House and Senate will soon come to an end. Watch.
SK in CV
March 23, 2010 @
5:24 PM
UCGal wrote:I put yes because [quote=UCGal]I put yes because it would have been devastatingly bad for the Dems if it had failed.
I think the GOP thinks they can sell the “repeal the bill” thing – but will get burned when people realize that repealing it means that we go back to kids being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, rescission is back, the donut hole for seniors is back… Not a good message for the GOP.
I think Frum got it right with his op-ed the other day. The anti-healthcare fervor is great for right wing talk radio – but bad for the GOP. (Frum was Bush’s speechwriter if you don’t know.)
They might be able to use the “repeal the bill….” in a few places. But those places are mostly already Republican. All they need to do to actually repeal the bill is pick up 26 senate seats and roughly 112 house seats (assuming democrats do not vote to repeal). The problem, of course, is that there are only 18 democratic senate seats up for election in November, so it’s a practical impossibility. 2 1/2 years from now? Well, if the Republicans can put together that Palin/Limbaugh ticket we might as well call that a done deal.
Veritas
March 23, 2010 @
6:00 PM
That ticket will not happen. That ticket will not happen. Why would Rush take a pay cut like that? As for Palin, I do not think she will run again unless there is a significant shift in the electorate to the right and unless there is a biological agent designed to weed out Libs., that shift will not happen. I see a general move to the right, but probably not enough to put Palin on the ballot again. She is like Coulter, polarizing. You all can just stop wishing for that ticket and work on fixing your own party. After all, Pelosi promised to drain the swamp. She should start with herself. When all the dirty deals are revealed even the die hards may be disgusted with the party in power.
danielwis
March 23, 2010 @
6:29 PM
Veritas wrote:That ticket [quote=Veritas]That ticket will not happen. Why would Rush take a pay cut like that? As for Palin, I do not think she will run again unless there is a significant shift in the electorate to the right and unless there is a biological agent designed to weed out Libs., that shift will not happen. I see a general move to the right, but probably not enough to put Palin on the ballot again. She is like Coulter, polarizing. You all can just stop wishing for that ticket and work on fixing your own party. After all, Pelosi promised to drain the swamp. She should start with herself. When all the dirty deals are revealed even the die hards may be disgusted with the party in power.[/quote]
What dirty deals? Pelosi is the leader of the House. There were no “dirty deals” in the House bill. The deals for Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, were in the Senate. Interesting that the “dirty” deals had to be for Senators that really are Republicans. Blanche Lincoln votes with the Republican’s all the time. You guys can gladly have her seat, if she wins the Democrat primary. I don’t know anyone that plans to donate or canvass for her outside of her own state.
Anonymous
March 23, 2010 @
7:45 PM
I’m one of those who wasn’t I’m one of those who wasn’t that excited about the bill before it passed, but now I think it is a great thing. I agree that the bill has a lot of problems, but it’s also going to do a lot of good.
Now we just need to raise taxes on those making more than $200K/year in order to pay for the thing.
mike92104
March 23, 2010 @
8:17 PM
I have generally voted for I have generally voted for third party candidates in most elections because I thought the two parties were both crap, but the actions of the democrats in congress and the office of the president will pretty much guarantee I will vote straight republican ticket in the next election. I don’t dislike all of the provisions in the bill, but the individual mandate, and the intrusion by the government it causes (which will only get worse) was something I was fundamentally against. I can’t see why we couldn’t have fixed the insurance gap without this intrusion, and to see the lie, bribe, and bend (to put it nicely) parliamentary to such an extent to get it passed even with huge popular opposition has convinced me that the dems no longer believe in the constitution. As an American, I feel it is my duty to do whatever I can to remove them from power in every office.
I felt like I used to be a centrist on most matters, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. This can’t be good for the dems.
Anonymous
March 23, 2010 @
8:21 PM
mike92104 wrote:
I felt like [quote=mike92104]
I felt like I used to be a centrist on most matters, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. This can’t be good for the dems.[/quote]
Looks like you’re wrong. 49% of Americans think the health care reform law is good versus only 40% who think it’s bad:
Public opinion polls are deeply influenced by official party positions, especially on the Republican side.
IIRC, Fox was recently determined by some pollster to be the most trusted news channel in the country. That’s, obviously, because there is a sizable conservative minority that trusts only Fox and nothing else, and the rest of us are split between CNN, MSNBC, etc. etc. For the last year or so, Fox has been pushing the idea that the Democratic healthcare bill is crap. Primarily because that was the party position. Those poll numbers indicate that they’ve been successful.
Eugene
March 24, 2010 @
4:09 AM
Quote:but the individual [quote]but the individual mandate, … I can’t see why we couldn’t have fixed the insurance gap without this intrusion[/quote]
Like I said: adverse selection. Look it up.
Democrats, by their nature, were inclined to go all-in. They wanted to get a bill that goes as far as possible (ideally, as far as healthcare systems in most other developed countries – mandate, public option, single payer), but they could’ve settled for less. In other circumstances, Republicans could’ve settled for less too. They could’ve said: “Okay, we understand the risks of adverse selection, but let’s implement a bipartisan bill like this, and then, if adverse selection turns out to be a problem, we’ll agree to a mandate.” That was not to be. Instead, Republicans chose to bet on the possibility to bury the bill completely, because they thought it would be a good political move to destroy Obama’s big ambition. In part because they, quite simply, don’t like black people. So, they made a conscious decision to oppose any bill to come from Democrats, regardless of merits, rather than try to negotiate.
In my opinion, actions of the Republican Party with regard to a bill that was almost identical to the one designed by the Heritage Foundation and the likes of Mitt Romney and backed by Republicans themselves in the 90’s as an alternative to “Clintoncare”, simply because they needed to teach “that black guy” a lesson and to score some points with the electorate, are much more dishonorable, and pretty much rule out the possibility that I’d vote Republican any time soon, not unless they get rid of dishonest people in the leadership and replace them with the likes of David Frum.
briansd1
March 24, 2010 @
10:12 AM
Eugene wrote:
In my opinion, [quote=Eugene]
In my opinion, actions of the Republican Party with regard to a bill that was almost identical to the one designed by the Heritage Foundation and the likes of Mitt Romney and backed by Republicans themselves in the 90’s as an alternative to “Clintoncare”, simply because they needed to teach “that black guy” a lesson and to score some points with the electorate, are much more dishonorable, and pretty much rule out the possibility that I’d vote Republican any time soon, not unless they get rid of dishonest people in the leadership and replace them with the likes of David Frum.[/quote]
I think that there’s a lot of that going on. People just don’t like that black guy. It’s not out in the open but it’s there.
I’ve heard family members say very derogatory things about Obama. Some of them, when it came to voting, regained their senses and did the right thing. Others just don’t like that black guy and never will.
People like to impugn Obama’s character, education and intellect out of spite. It’s however clear to me, that intellectually, educationally, and character wise, Obama is vastly superior to his detractors.
Anonymous
March 24, 2010 @
10:32 PM
Democrats, by their nature, Democrats, by their nature, were inclined to go all-in. They wanted to get a bill that goes as far as possible (ideally, as far as healthcare systems in most other developed countries – mandate, public option, single payer), but they could’ve settled for less. In other circumstances, Republicans could’ve settled for less too. They could’ve said: “Okay, we understand the risks of adverse selection, but let’s implement a bipartisan bill like this, and then, if adverse selection turns out to be a problem, we’ll agree to a mandate.” That was not to be. Instead, Republicans chose to bet on the possibility to bury the bill completely, because they thought it would be a good political move to destroy Obama’s big ambition. In part because they, quite simply, don’t like black people. So, they made a conscious decision to oppose any bill to come from Democrats, regardless of merits, rather than try to negotiate.
In my opinion, actions of the Republican Party with regard to a bill that was almost identical to the one designed by the Heritage Foundation and the likes of Mitt Romney and backed by Republicans themselves in the 90’s as an alternative to “Clintoncare”, simply because they needed to teach “that black guy” a lesson and to score some points with the electorate, are much more dishonorable, and pretty much rule out the possibility that I’d vote Republican any time soon, not unless they get rid of dishonest people in the leadership and replace them with the likes of David Frum.[/quote]
Agreed. Common sense may win out: Don’t complain if you were not willing to participate in making it better.
Anonymous
March 24, 2010 @
10:34 PM
Meant to credit Eugene on Meant to credit Eugene on those first two paragraphs, but haven’t figured out the system….
mike92104
March 24, 2010 @
10:42 PM
Quote:In part because they, [quote]In part because they, quite simply, don’t like black people. [/quote]
And there goes the race card. If you don’t agree with the messiah, then you MUST be a racist.
sd_matt
March 24, 2010 @
10:46 PM
give it time. let the give it time. let the healthcare bill skyrocket the cost in the midst of Depression 2.0. then repeal it. let the people get a big taste of the “guiding hand of government” for a couple election terms.
briansd1
March 27, 2010 @
10:08 AM
I just watched Obama’s “Go I just watched Obama’s “Go For It” video. Obama’s speech was really good with some good humor. There was an impromptu moment when Obama answered a heckler.
So in Arizona, the So in Arizona, the Republicans are rallying for the their primary.
Senator McCain the incumbent, having a rally where the majority of people showed up to see ‘you betcha’ Sarin Palin endorse him.
At his challengers camp, a right wing, talk show pundit former Congressman named JD Hayworth, Joe the Plumber.
Really?
No, really?!?!?!
That’s the best Arizona can do? McCain versus a talk show blowhard and the big pull endorsers are Palin and the plumber?
Is that the base the republicans really think will be a majority that can drive them to victory?
beanmaestro
March 24, 2010 @
12:20 PM
mike92104 wrote:I have [quote=mike92104]I have generally voted for third party candidates in most elections because I thought the two parties were both crap, but the actions of the democrats in congress and the office of the president will pretty much guarantee I will vote straight republican ticket in the next election. I don’t dislike all of the provisions in the bill, but the individual mandate, and the intrusion by the government it causes (which will only get worse) was something I was fundamentally against. I can’t see why we couldn’t have fixed the insurance gap without this intrusion, and to see the lie, bribe, and bend (to put it nicely) parliamentary to such an extent to get it passed even with huge popular opposition has convinced me that the dems no longer believe in the constitution. [/quote]
Hang on a second here. The Dems got 60 votes in the Senate, then got the House to pass the Senate bill. They got 60 seats in the Senate because the previous Republican inhabitants governed poorly under Bush. The fact there are no longer 60 Dems in the Senate doesn’t change the fact that the bill got 60 votes in January. The provisions in the reconciliation package are mostly improvements to the Senate bill that would normally have bipartisan support. Several Repubs have said as much.
The Repubs are the ones who tried to bloc-veto the entire bill, and in so doing, threw away their power to negotiate the terms. Me, I’m angry with moderate Republicans for not better representing their moderate constituencies (including mine, the Santa Barbara-SLO County House seat) in negotiations. I want representatives who will think for themselves when the party line is questionable. Ergo, I think I’ll err on the blue side of the line until the Repubs learn their lesson.
danielwis
March 24, 2010 @
1:46 PM
beanmaestro wrote:mike92104 [quote=beanmaestro][quote=mike92104]I have generally voted for third party candidates in most elections because I thought the two parties were both crap, but the actions of the democrats in congress and the office of the president will pretty much guarantee I will vote straight republican ticket in the next election. I don’t dislike all of the provisions in the bill, but the individual mandate, and the intrusion by the government it causes (which will only get worse) was something I was fundamentally against. I can’t see why we couldn’t have fixed the insurance gap without this intrusion, and to see the lie, bribe, and bend (to put it nicely) parliamentary to such an extent to get it passed even with huge popular opposition has convinced me that the dems no longer believe in the constitution. [/quote]
Hang on a second here. The Dems got 60 votes in the Senate, then got the House to pass the Senate bill. They got 60 seats in the Senate because the previous Republican inhabitants governed poorly under Bush. The fact there are no longer 60 Dems in the Senate doesn’t change the fact that the bill got 60 votes in January. The provisions in the reconciliation package are mostly improvements to the Senate bill that would normally have bipartisan support. Several Repubs have said as much.
The Repubs are the ones who tried to bloc-veto the entire bill, and in so doing, threw away their power to negotiate the terms. Me, I’m angry with moderate Republicans for not better representing their moderate constituencies (including mine, the Santa Barbara-SLO County House seat) in negotiations. I want representatives who will think for themselves when the party line is questionable. Ergo, I think I’ll err on the blue side of the line until the Repubs learn their lesson.[/quote]
+1. Excellent comment. Fox News is too busy telling people the rules were bent and broken, which is pure bullshit. Half the Republican’s I talk to have either forgotten or don’t even know the bill met a 60 vote threshold in the Senate back on Dec 24th. I few funding mechanisms are now being fixed in reconciliation. There is absolutely nothing suspect about the process, but then that’s all the Republicans can attack, since they chose to try and prevent passage anyway they could, including lying about the process.
briansd1
March 24, 2010 @
10:07 PM
I think that, in November, I think that, in November, the American people will resoundingly reelect Democrats.
Timothy Egan
House of Anger
By embracing the Tea Party movement, Republicans are fast becoming the party of the hissy fit.
Reagan was all about sunny optimism, and at times bipartisan bonhomie. In him, the American people saw their better half.
Compare that to the closing days of a week that will soon be chiseled into the larger American story. One Democrat, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, said he was called a “wetback” by Tea Party hecklers at a meeting a few days before the vote. Black members of Congress say they were spat on, and called racial epithets. Bricks were thrown through the office windows of two other Democrats. And now, the inevitable death threats.
The stock market ticked up Monday and Tuesday, continuing an upward run of more than 40 percent in the broader S&P index since Obama became president, including the best first year of the market for any president since Franklin Roosevelt. (The shares of some big insurance stocks fell).
A USA Today/Gallup poll showed a plurality now favored the new law — yes, favored. After months of Republicans saying Democrats were going against the will of the people, a plurality — 49 to 40 percent — said passing the bill was “a good thing,” the poll found.
mike92104
March 24, 2010 @
10:34 PM
I seem to remember that most I seem to remember that most of the opposition for the bill was over the individual mandate and the public “option”. I think most conservatives would have supported starting over and working to close the insurance gaps, but more importantly reducing the cost of health care in general. Nothing in the bill addresses costs, and the only reason the public option was taken out was to get democrats to support it. It seems like an easy thing to compromise on, but takeover was on the dems minds, and they weren’t going to let it go.
sd_matt
March 24, 2010 @
10:47 PM
mike92104 wrote:I seem to [quote=mike92104]I seem to remember that most of the opposition for the bill was over the individual mandate and the public “option”. I think most conservatives would have supported starting over and working to close the insurance gaps, but more importantly reducing the cost of health care in general. Nothing in the bill addresses costs, and the only reason the public option was taken out was to get democrats to support it. It seems like an easy thing to compromise on, but takeover was on the dems minds, and they weren’t going to let it go.[/quote]
I don’t feel that the Repubs were ever willing to do much which is why we are here now.
Anonymous
March 24, 2010 @
10:50 PM
That’s alot of qualification, That’s alot of qualification, and not a very accurate history. As Eugene’s post points out, there is a very long history to negotiation of this bill, and in the last six months, the Republicans (I won’t call them conservatives, because I think they’re radical) have just said “no” and “let’s start over.” Start over after so many years of trying to reach agreement? I don’t think so.
svelte
March 25, 2010 @
10:45 AM
beanmaestro wrote:I want [quote=beanmaestro]I want representatives who will think for themselves when the party line is questionable. Ergo, I think I’ll err on the blue side of the line until the Repubs learn their lesson.[/quote]
Love that statement. My sentiments exactly.
One reason I liked McCain (since he bucks the system) until he made his VP choice.
briansd1
March 25, 2010 @
2:49 PM
UCGal wrote:
I think Frum got [quote=UCGal]
I think Frum got it right with his op-ed the other day. The anti-healthcare fervor is great for right wing talk radio – but bad for the GOP. (Frum was Bush’s speechwriter if you don’t know.)
The jury is still out on The jury is still out on whether this will help the dems or reps.
It truly could go either way…depends upon which side is better at winning over public opinion.
If I were to guess, I would suspect it will end up helping the dems because people are filled with fear of change right now. Once that fear subsides, I think they will be able to look at this logically and see it isn’t near the sea-change it appears to be on the surface.
A step in the right direction, yes. A drastic alteration of their day-to-day lives…no.
March 23, 2010 @ 3:01 PM
I think Yes, because the base
I think Yes, because the base is more energized.
Had the bill been defeated, Democrats would have be demoralized.
The Republicans are demoralized and will just stay home in November.
If Obama continues the PR that he’s so good at, I believe that Democrats can hold onto, perhaps expand their congressional lead this November.
The psychology of politics is like football. You need to have wins in order to keep the fans motivated.
March 23, 2010 @ 3:11 PM
I think a lot of these clowns
I think a lot of these clowns get voted out of office in November after this farce.
March 23, 2010 @ 3:40 PM
I would have to put no..
I would have to put no.. particularly if the loss of Massachusetts is an example. I think the real cost to the party will show up in about 8 or more years.
The other question would be; can the Republican party capitalize on it… No, if there behavior is any indication. The party heads are so ‘inbred’ that they can’t even focus. The Republican party needs an enema starting at the top and working its way down.
March 23, 2010 @ 4:04 PM
Thanks to all the effort
Thanks to all the effort Republicans put in to vilify the bill, this was a no-win situation. But it’s better to pass the bill and appear socialist, than to fail and appear incompetent.
March 23, 2010 @ 4:13 PM
I put yes because it would
I put yes because it would have been devastatingly bad for the Dems if it had failed.
I think the GOP thinks they can sell the “repeal the bill” thing – but will get burned when people realize that repealing it means that we go back to kids being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, rescission is back, the donut hole for seniors is back… Not a good message for the GOP.
I think Frum got it right with his op-ed the other day. The anti-healthcare fervor is great for right wing talk radio – but bad for the GOP. (Frum was Bush’s speechwriter if you don’t know.)
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
March 23, 2010 @ 4:24 PM
Quote:but will get burned
[quote]but will get burned when people realize that repealing it means that we go back to kids being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, rescission is back, the donut hole for seniors is back… Not a good message for the GOP.[/quote]
The GOP will probably to try to fight the specific provisions they don’t like: keep some or all new insurance regulations, kill the mandate, and kill the subsidies. And they might succeed. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of population understands the concept of “adverse selection”, and any mentions of the concept will be carefully screened by Fox News.
March 23, 2010 @ 5:18 PM
Eugene wrote:Unfortunately,
[quote=Eugene]Unfortunately, only a small percentage of population understands the concept of “adverse selection”, and any mentions of the concept will be carefully screened by Fox News.[/quote]
I wonder if the Fox News’ audience know that Fox is owned by an Australian.
March 23, 2010 @ 5:20 PM
Are you kidding? A nine
Are you kidding? A nine point jump for Obama from one week ago in one of the polls mentioned on the news today?
This is going to unite and motivate the Democratic base. And independents are clearly rallying around this now that it has passed.
Why do you think John Boehner’s orange head almost exploded on Capitol Hill Sunday? This is bad bad bad for the GOP, especially now when people get to see it and feel its benefits, many of which start immediately.
And oh, Granny? That is going to be the laughing stock of the fall elections. No ones Granny is going to get hauled out of bed to meet before a death panel. In fact the donut hole for medicare drug costs start to close this year. Seniors will feel that before election day.
Young people can stay on parents insurance until age 26, starting this year. Recision for health conditions stops this year. Denial of health care for children with pre-existing conditions stops this year. Tax credits for 4 million small businesses starts this year.
The GOP has just passed the high point for 2010. In fact Scott Brown was the high point. November is not going to be nearly the coup they had dreamed. They likely take a hand full of House seats, and maybe 2 or 3 Senate seats, tops. The talk of taking the House and Senate will soon come to an end. Watch.
March 23, 2010 @ 5:24 PM
UCGal wrote:I put yes because
[quote=UCGal]I put yes because it would have been devastatingly bad for the Dems if it had failed.
I think the GOP thinks they can sell the “repeal the bill” thing – but will get burned when people realize that repealing it means that we go back to kids being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, rescission is back, the donut hole for seniors is back… Not a good message for the GOP.
I think Frum got it right with his op-ed the other day. The anti-healthcare fervor is great for right wing talk radio – but bad for the GOP. (Frum was Bush’s speechwriter if you don’t know.)
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo%5B/quote%5D
They might be able to use the “repeal the bill….” in a few places. But those places are mostly already Republican. All they need to do to actually repeal the bill is pick up 26 senate seats and roughly 112 house seats (assuming democrats do not vote to repeal). The problem, of course, is that there are only 18 democratic senate seats up for election in November, so it’s a practical impossibility. 2 1/2 years from now? Well, if the Republicans can put together that Palin/Limbaugh ticket we might as well call that a done deal.
March 23, 2010 @ 6:00 PM
That ticket will not happen.
That ticket will not happen. Why would Rush take a pay cut like that? As for Palin, I do not think she will run again unless there is a significant shift in the electorate to the right and unless there is a biological agent designed to weed out Libs., that shift will not happen. I see a general move to the right, but probably not enough to put Palin on the ballot again. She is like Coulter, polarizing. You all can just stop wishing for that ticket and work on fixing your own party. After all, Pelosi promised to drain the swamp. She should start with herself. When all the dirty deals are revealed even the die hards may be disgusted with the party in power.
March 23, 2010 @ 6:29 PM
Veritas wrote:That ticket
[quote=Veritas]That ticket will not happen. Why would Rush take a pay cut like that? As for Palin, I do not think she will run again unless there is a significant shift in the electorate to the right and unless there is a biological agent designed to weed out Libs., that shift will not happen. I see a general move to the right, but probably not enough to put Palin on the ballot again. She is like Coulter, polarizing. You all can just stop wishing for that ticket and work on fixing your own party. After all, Pelosi promised to drain the swamp. She should start with herself. When all the dirty deals are revealed even the die hards may be disgusted with the party in power.[/quote]
What dirty deals? Pelosi is the leader of the House. There were no “dirty deals” in the House bill. The deals for Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, were in the Senate. Interesting that the “dirty” deals had to be for Senators that really are Republicans. Blanche Lincoln votes with the Republican’s all the time. You guys can gladly have her seat, if she wins the Democrat primary. I don’t know anyone that plans to donate or canvass for her outside of her own state.
March 23, 2010 @ 7:45 PM
I’m one of those who wasn’t
I’m one of those who wasn’t that excited about the bill before it passed, but now I think it is a great thing. I agree that the bill has a lot of problems, but it’s also going to do a lot of good.
Now we just need to raise taxes on those making more than $200K/year in order to pay for the thing.
March 23, 2010 @ 8:17 PM
I have generally voted for
I have generally voted for third party candidates in most elections because I thought the two parties were both crap, but the actions of the democrats in congress and the office of the president will pretty much guarantee I will vote straight republican ticket in the next election. I don’t dislike all of the provisions in the bill, but the individual mandate, and the intrusion by the government it causes (which will only get worse) was something I was fundamentally against. I can’t see why we couldn’t have fixed the insurance gap without this intrusion, and to see the lie, bribe, and bend (to put it nicely) parliamentary to such an extent to get it passed even with huge popular opposition has convinced me that the dems no longer believe in the constitution. As an American, I feel it is my duty to do whatever I can to remove them from power in every office.
I felt like I used to be a centrist on most matters, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. This can’t be good for the dems.
March 23, 2010 @ 8:21 PM
mike92104 wrote:
I felt like
[quote=mike92104]
I felt like I used to be a centrist on most matters, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way. This can’t be good for the dems.[/quote]
Looks like you’re wrong. 49% of Americans think the health care reform law is good versus only 40% who think it’s bad:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/obama-democrats-begin-rea_n_510563.html
That can’t be good for the Republicans.
March 23, 2010 @ 9:02 PM
I’m sure the Huffington Post
I’m sure the Huffington Post didn’t choose a poll to publish by whether or not it fit their views.
Here’s a couple that might be a little less biased.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/50_less_likely_to_vote_for_congress_member_who_supports_health_care_plan
March 23, 2010 @ 9:06 PM
mike92104 wrote:I’m sure the
[quote=mike92104]I’m sure the Huffington Post didn’t choose a poll to publish by whether or not it fit their views.
Here’s a couple that might be a little less biased.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/50_less_likely_to_vote_for_congress_member_who_supports_health_care_plan%5B/quote%5D
Less biased? What are you talking about? That’s Rasmussen. They’re almost invariably 5 pts or more to the right of other pollsters.
March 24, 2010 @ 4:14 AM
mike92104 wrote:I’m sure the
[quote=mike92104]I’m sure the Huffington Post didn’t choose a poll to publish by whether or not it fit their views.
Here’s a couple that might be a little less biased.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform%5B/quote%5D
Public opinion polls are deeply influenced by official party positions, especially on the Republican side.
IIRC, Fox was recently determined by some pollster to be the most trusted news channel in the country. That’s, obviously, because there is a sizable conservative minority that trusts only Fox and nothing else, and the rest of us are split between CNN, MSNBC, etc. etc. For the last year or so, Fox has been pushing the idea that the Democratic healthcare bill is crap. Primarily because that was the party position. Those poll numbers indicate that they’ve been successful.
March 24, 2010 @ 4:09 AM
Quote:but the individual
[quote]but the individual mandate, … I can’t see why we couldn’t have fixed the insurance gap without this intrusion[/quote]
Like I said: adverse selection. Look it up.
Democrats, by their nature, were inclined to go all-in. They wanted to get a bill that goes as far as possible (ideally, as far as healthcare systems in most other developed countries – mandate, public option, single payer), but they could’ve settled for less. In other circumstances, Republicans could’ve settled for less too. They could’ve said: “Okay, we understand the risks of adverse selection, but let’s implement a bipartisan bill like this, and then, if adverse selection turns out to be a problem, we’ll agree to a mandate.” That was not to be. Instead, Republicans chose to bet on the possibility to bury the bill completely, because they thought it would be a good political move to destroy Obama’s big ambition. In part because they, quite simply, don’t like black people. So, they made a conscious decision to oppose any bill to come from Democrats, regardless of merits, rather than try to negotiate.
In my opinion, actions of the Republican Party with regard to a bill that was almost identical to the one designed by the Heritage Foundation and the likes of Mitt Romney and backed by Republicans themselves in the 90’s as an alternative to “Clintoncare”, simply because they needed to teach “that black guy” a lesson and to score some points with the electorate, are much more dishonorable, and pretty much rule out the possibility that I’d vote Republican any time soon, not unless they get rid of dishonest people in the leadership and replace them with the likes of David Frum.
March 24, 2010 @ 10:12 AM
Eugene wrote:
In my opinion,
[quote=Eugene]
In my opinion, actions of the Republican Party with regard to a bill that was almost identical to the one designed by the Heritage Foundation and the likes of Mitt Romney and backed by Republicans themselves in the 90’s as an alternative to “Clintoncare”, simply because they needed to teach “that black guy” a lesson and to score some points with the electorate, are much more dishonorable, and pretty much rule out the possibility that I’d vote Republican any time soon, not unless they get rid of dishonest people in the leadership and replace them with the likes of David Frum.[/quote]
I think that there’s a lot of that going on. People just don’t like that black guy. It’s not out in the open but it’s there.
I’ve heard family members say very derogatory things about Obama. Some of them, when it came to voting, regained their senses and did the right thing. Others just don’t like that black guy and never will.
People like to impugn Obama’s character, education and intellect out of spite. It’s however clear to me, that intellectually, educationally, and character wise, Obama is vastly superior to his detractors.
March 24, 2010 @ 10:32 PM
Democrats, by their nature,
Democrats, by their nature, were inclined to go all-in. They wanted to get a bill that goes as far as possible (ideally, as far as healthcare systems in most other developed countries – mandate, public option, single payer), but they could’ve settled for less. In other circumstances, Republicans could’ve settled for less too. They could’ve said: “Okay, we understand the risks of adverse selection, but let’s implement a bipartisan bill like this, and then, if adverse selection turns out to be a problem, we’ll agree to a mandate.” That was not to be. Instead, Republicans chose to bet on the possibility to bury the bill completely, because they thought it would be a good political move to destroy Obama’s big ambition. In part because they, quite simply, don’t like black people. So, they made a conscious decision to oppose any bill to come from Democrats, regardless of merits, rather than try to negotiate.
In my opinion, actions of the Republican Party with regard to a bill that was almost identical to the one designed by the Heritage Foundation and the likes of Mitt Romney and backed by Republicans themselves in the 90’s as an alternative to “Clintoncare”, simply because they needed to teach “that black guy” a lesson and to score some points with the electorate, are much more dishonorable, and pretty much rule out the possibility that I’d vote Republican any time soon, not unless they get rid of dishonest people in the leadership and replace them with the likes of David Frum.[/quote]
Agreed. Common sense may win out: Don’t complain if you were not willing to participate in making it better.
March 24, 2010 @ 10:34 PM
Meant to credit Eugene on
Meant to credit Eugene on those first two paragraphs, but haven’t figured out the system….
March 24, 2010 @ 10:42 PM
Quote:In part because they,
[quote]In part because they, quite simply, don’t like black people. [/quote]
And there goes the race card. If you don’t agree with the messiah, then you MUST be a racist.
March 24, 2010 @ 10:46 PM
give it time. let the
give it time. let the healthcare bill skyrocket the cost in the midst of Depression 2.0. then repeal it. let the people get a big taste of the “guiding hand of government” for a couple election terms.
March 27, 2010 @ 10:08 AM
I just watched Obama’s “Go
I just watched Obama’s “Go For It” video. Obama’s speech was really good with some good humor. There was an impromptu moment when Obama answered a heckler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3KvBBle9nA
March 27, 2010 @ 10:22 PM
So in Arizona, the
So in Arizona, the Republicans are rallying for the their primary.
Senator McCain the incumbent, having a rally where the majority of people showed up to see ‘you betcha’ Sarin Palin endorse him.
At his challengers camp, a right wing, talk show pundit former Congressman named JD Hayworth, Joe the Plumber.
Really?
No, really?!?!?!
That’s the best Arizona can do? McCain versus a talk show blowhard and the big pull endorsers are Palin and the plumber?
Is that the base the republicans really think will be a majority that can drive them to victory?
March 24, 2010 @ 12:20 PM
mike92104 wrote:I have
[quote=mike92104]I have generally voted for third party candidates in most elections because I thought the two parties were both crap, but the actions of the democrats in congress and the office of the president will pretty much guarantee I will vote straight republican ticket in the next election. I don’t dislike all of the provisions in the bill, but the individual mandate, and the intrusion by the government it causes (which will only get worse) was something I was fundamentally against. I can’t see why we couldn’t have fixed the insurance gap without this intrusion, and to see the lie, bribe, and bend (to put it nicely) parliamentary to such an extent to get it passed even with huge popular opposition has convinced me that the dems no longer believe in the constitution. [/quote]
Hang on a second here. The Dems got 60 votes in the Senate, then got the House to pass the Senate bill. They got 60 seats in the Senate because the previous Republican inhabitants governed poorly under Bush. The fact there are no longer 60 Dems in the Senate doesn’t change the fact that the bill got 60 votes in January. The provisions in the reconciliation package are mostly improvements to the Senate bill that would normally have bipartisan support. Several Repubs have said as much.
The Repubs are the ones who tried to bloc-veto the entire bill, and in so doing, threw away their power to negotiate the terms. Me, I’m angry with moderate Republicans for not better representing their moderate constituencies (including mine, the Santa Barbara-SLO County House seat) in negotiations. I want representatives who will think for themselves when the party line is questionable. Ergo, I think I’ll err on the blue side of the line until the Repubs learn their lesson.
March 24, 2010 @ 1:46 PM
beanmaestro wrote:mike92104
[quote=beanmaestro][quote=mike92104]I have generally voted for third party candidates in most elections because I thought the two parties were both crap, but the actions of the democrats in congress and the office of the president will pretty much guarantee I will vote straight republican ticket in the next election. I don’t dislike all of the provisions in the bill, but the individual mandate, and the intrusion by the government it causes (which will only get worse) was something I was fundamentally against. I can’t see why we couldn’t have fixed the insurance gap without this intrusion, and to see the lie, bribe, and bend (to put it nicely) parliamentary to such an extent to get it passed even with huge popular opposition has convinced me that the dems no longer believe in the constitution. [/quote]
Hang on a second here. The Dems got 60 votes in the Senate, then got the House to pass the Senate bill. They got 60 seats in the Senate because the previous Republican inhabitants governed poorly under Bush. The fact there are no longer 60 Dems in the Senate doesn’t change the fact that the bill got 60 votes in January. The provisions in the reconciliation package are mostly improvements to the Senate bill that would normally have bipartisan support. Several Repubs have said as much.
The Repubs are the ones who tried to bloc-veto the entire bill, and in so doing, threw away their power to negotiate the terms. Me, I’m angry with moderate Republicans for not better representing their moderate constituencies (including mine, the Santa Barbara-SLO County House seat) in negotiations. I want representatives who will think for themselves when the party line is questionable. Ergo, I think I’ll err on the blue side of the line until the Repubs learn their lesson.[/quote]
+1. Excellent comment. Fox News is too busy telling people the rules were bent and broken, which is pure bullshit. Half the Republican’s I talk to have either forgotten or don’t even know the bill met a 60 vote threshold in the Senate back on Dec 24th. I few funding mechanisms are now being fixed in reconciliation. There is absolutely nothing suspect about the process, but then that’s all the Republicans can attack, since they chose to try and prevent passage anyway they could, including lying about the process.
March 24, 2010 @ 10:07 PM
I think that, in November,
I think that, in November, the American people will resoundingly reelect Democrats.
March 24, 2010 @ 10:34 PM
I seem to remember that most
I seem to remember that most of the opposition for the bill was over the individual mandate and the public “option”. I think most conservatives would have supported starting over and working to close the insurance gaps, but more importantly reducing the cost of health care in general. Nothing in the bill addresses costs, and the only reason the public option was taken out was to get democrats to support it. It seems like an easy thing to compromise on, but takeover was on the dems minds, and they weren’t going to let it go.
March 24, 2010 @ 10:47 PM
mike92104 wrote:I seem to
[quote=mike92104]I seem to remember that most of the opposition for the bill was over the individual mandate and the public “option”. I think most conservatives would have supported starting over and working to close the insurance gaps, but more importantly reducing the cost of health care in general. Nothing in the bill addresses costs, and the only reason the public option was taken out was to get democrats to support it. It seems like an easy thing to compromise on, but takeover was on the dems minds, and they weren’t going to let it go.[/quote]
I don’t feel that the Repubs were ever willing to do much which is why we are here now.
March 24, 2010 @ 10:50 PM
That’s alot of qualification,
That’s alot of qualification, and not a very accurate history. As Eugene’s post points out, there is a very long history to negotiation of this bill, and in the last six months, the Republicans (I won’t call them conservatives, because I think they’re radical) have just said “no” and “let’s start over.” Start over after so many years of trying to reach agreement? I don’t think so.
March 25, 2010 @ 10:45 AM
beanmaestro wrote:I want
[quote=beanmaestro]I want representatives who will think for themselves when the party line is questionable. Ergo, I think I’ll err on the blue side of the line until the Repubs learn their lesson.[/quote]
Love that statement. My sentiments exactly.
One reason I liked McCain (since he bucks the system) until he made his VP choice.
March 25, 2010 @ 2:49 PM
UCGal wrote:
I think Frum got
[quote=UCGal]
I think Frum got it right with his op-ed the other day. The anti-healthcare fervor is great for right wing talk radio – but bad for the GOP. (Frum was Bush’s speechwriter if you don’t know.)
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
[/quote]
I’m afraid that blaming the messenger is not going to work out.
Republican commentator David Frum loses job after criticizing GOP health-care strategy
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 25, 2010; 4:14 PM
Three days after calling health-care reform a debacle for the Republicans, David Frum was forced out of his job at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502336.html?hpid=topnews
March 23, 2010 @ 9:32 PM
The jury is still out on
The jury is still out on whether this will help the dems or reps.
It truly could go either way…depends upon which side is better at winning over public opinion.
If I were to guess, I would suspect it will end up helping the dems because people are filled with fear of change right now. Once that fear subsides, I think they will be able to look at this logically and see it isn’t near the sea-change it appears to be on the surface.
A step in the right direction, yes. A drastic alteration of their day-to-day lives…no.