Waiting for deliverance
The turkey hunters I talked to yesterday hoped for a Republican revival and they certainly appear to have got one. As expected Republican Bob McDonnell is Virginia's next governor. Perhaps more surprisingly Chris Christie took New Jersey, even though the sitting Governor John Corzine spent millions of his own money on the campaign.
It's an unhappy anniversary present for Barack Obama, who took Virginia in the election a year ago today.
Some say these elections don't matter. And they are right that this is not a straightforward referendum on the president. But they do point to the mood in the United States. The president's allies in the liberal wing of the Democrat party think he's moving too slowly. Conservatives are furious he's gone too far. Many of both parties are reserving judgment. But of course voters can't do that, they have to make a choice.
The huntsmen I met in Virginia are a patient lot, waiting for deer or turkey that seem understandably reluctant to turn up. Sometimes they will spend all night sitting in a tree, or lying in the long grass. I don't quite go to those lengths, but sometime I feel like I, too, am hunting a rare, or perhaps even mythic, beast.
The people I want to hear from are those who voted for President Obama but have lost faith, even changed sides. After all, they will be the key to next year's mid-term elections and - looking further ahead - to whether Obama gets a second term.
Jenny, who lives in a trailer home with her husband and two little children on the outskirt of Roanoke, is one of them. Thirteen months ago, my colleague and predecessor Justin Webb interviewed them.
They said they had always been Republicans, but because of the economy, they were going to vote for Obama. They're still living in the trailer, but have scrimped and saved and are excited about moving into a house just around the corner very soon.
Jenny told me she not only voted for Obama last November, she also lost her job. And she's disillusioned with the president.
"He made everything sound good like he was just going to make everything great. And it's just not, the economy has become way worse and I would just like him to walk in my shoes for 24 hours and see how he does it."
She described what he's doing as "horrible" and thinks his plans for "equal health care" are wrong.
It's notoriously unwise to make judgements on a series of random vox pops, but whenever I am out and about, I try to ask people about this - often without a microphone or camera stuck under their nose. And I think the switcher is a pretty rare beast, if a very important one.
Exit polling in both New Jersey and Virginia indicates that a majority of those who voted thought the president is doing a good job. But asking my questions I do get a sense that they are holding the faith, rather than applauding achievements. Turnout is really important: the people at the heart of last year's Obama surge, blacks and those under 30, stayed away from the polls in droves.
These results will give Republicans a sense of enthusiasm, of momentum and may demoralise some Democrats. It may make some, up for election next year, nervous about supporting bold policies, like the public option in healthcare.
To use a New Labour phrase, Obama is in that tricky post-euphoria, pre-delivery phase.
It's even trickier if people feel deliverance never comes.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~02~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Darn Franco Harris didnt win in Pitt either
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09307/1010582-100.stm
Complain about this comment
If people are disillusioned now then they weren't paying attention before - or they're suffering from short term memory loss. Obama said it would take years to fix this mess. He didn't ever say it would happen over night. And since the Republicans Jenny is so fond of refused to give Americans the stimulus package they really needed, she has no one to blame but herself if she voted for more of the same obstructionism and the recovery takes even longer. It never fails to amaze me how people who vote against their own best interests not only continue to do so, but blame someone else for their troubles when it all goes wrong. Jenny helped put Bush into power, twice - but is she saying mea culpa? No, she's saying, "Fix what I broke, so I can do it again, please. And hurry up!"
Complain about this comment
That lady in roanoke is just plain ignorant. I voted for President Obama and not once did i ever think that he would "fix everything". I applauded his message of hope. Our economy was already in the toilet from Bush and the medical industry has no problem crippiling the family's that pay for their fat cat profits. The I.R.S collects 2 trillion dollars a year, why cant President Obama get a lousy 800 million to give health coverage to the people of the United States. Bush had no problem giving money to the banks that were stealing from the people in this country.
Complain about this comment
"(Jenny) described what he's doing as "horrible" and thinks his plans for "equal health care" are wrong."
I am led to wonder why, living in a trailer park, she ever considered herself a Republican? What has that party ever done for the economically disadvantaged? And yet after two terms of GWB, she expects a new President to cure all her ills with the stroke of a pen. Clearly she wasn't a convinced Republican but voted for Mr Obama for what she thought she could get out of his presidency. As with the Leons of the previous thread, she considers equal healthcare wrong - but what does she have now? Regrettably, Mark does not tell us that she and her family are covered and, being out-of-work, I might conclude that she has none. Would not "equal healthcare" benefit her and those like her? One should not judge of course, but none of those interviewed seem to be candidates for Mensa.
"looking further ahead - to whether Obama gets a second term."
He's not even through his first year, let alone another three. So much can happen before the nest Presidential Election day which is exactly three years from today, Tuesday. Would anyone have predicted the (UK) Labour Party's descent back in 2006? If one week is a long time in politics, what can a hundred-and-fifty-six be? Far too early to be even thinking about an Obama defeat.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why no mention of the gubernatorial race in New Jersey which unseated incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine. Corzine outspent Christie by multiples and had the backing of Obama who campagined heavily for him. I got telehone calls from him, Bill Clinton and other big guns. Huge defeat for the Democrats in my opinion. Virginia? Well it wasn't nearly as blue. Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire Republican mayor of New York got in again. I was sorry about that. He is too despotic for my taste. Mayoral elections in New York are not party related.
Complain about this comment
PS to my earlier post at #4:
"They're still living in the trailer, but have scrimped and saved and are excited about moving into a house just around the corner very soon."
If she's out of work, how can she possibly get a mortgage? Or if she doesn't need a mortgage and is paying cash, what's her problem? Something's rotten in Roanoke!
Complain about this comment
"It never fails to amaze me how people who vote against their own best interests not only continue to do so, but blame someone else for their troubles when it all goes wrong."
It never fails to amaze me how often this line is used to diregard a person's vote. Government by the people & for the people is supposed to represent & act on the will of the people, not dictate to the people what is best for them. Why not respect her vote rather than question her motives or her intelligence.
Complain about this comment
8, Bienvenue.
Don't you think it is naive and unreasonable to expect a president to solve individual personal problems?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"It never fails to amaze me how often this line is used to diregard a person's vote. Government by the people & for the people is supposed to represent & act on the will of the people, not dictate to the people what is best for them. Why not respect her vote rather than question her motives or her intelligence." BienvenueEnLouisiana
Very well said Bravo! "The country shall be independent, and we will be satisfied with nothing short of it." Samuel Adams
Complain about this comment
#8. BienvenueEnLouisiana: "Why not respect her vote rather than question her motives or her intelligence."
Why should we? A vote's a vote, but surely it should be cast with some kind of rational forethought? If she believed that the incumbent President could undo the work of the previous eight years in eight months or so, then she's delusional. You're too forgiving of those like her who seemed to believe that Mr Obama was the Messiah incarnate and, like the historical figure, would work miracles. What's the betting that she's an ardent church-goer into the bargain?
Complain about this comment
#7 David,
Good point. I was wondering the same thing myself.
Complain about this comment
FOR SALE one vintage OBAMA HOPE AND CHANGE bumper sticker. No further details listed here as to what his plan was? Americans love to vote for a bumper sticker, plus fear and uncertainty caused this. How long was Obama a Senator for ? years? Watching his background and association with radical people who did bombings, his pastor, gave me more than a few cautionary flags. Well the world keeps turning. Just survive.
Complain about this comment
9,allmymarbles:
I do think it is naive to expect the President and the Federal government to solve individual personal problems, and I would rather the Feds not waste the money trying to do so. I would, however, be more inclined to support such action at the state level. I can analyze and discuss the significance of Ms. Jenny's vote all I want, but who am I to question her vote...for Obama or for McDonnell. She made a choice based on what she believed was in her best interest, as do I all the time. My problem with the statement I commented on in post 8 is that it all too often comes off as being disparaging and elitist. Gavrielle_LaPoste might as well have called Ms. Jenny trailer trash.
Complain about this comment
04 Nov 2009, Phaedra wrote:"With that sort of intellect, no wonder she's in a trailer park."
Let me propose that a large bank account doesn't automatically reflect either intelligence, hard work or moral worth.
Any middle-level dealer has more money than anyone in a trailer park. So has any futures market screen jockey, or thieving CEO. These guys aren't geniuses, hard workers or a guide to anything. In fact they're of no use to the nation. Most trailer park folk work at something useful or try to.
It's a curiousity that the Liberal Left, the yapping 'Elites', the Peoples' Pals, generally despise the people. This knowledge could decide the next election.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Republicans have overwhelmingly swept Virginia and have won NJ. This is very significant and comes at the worst time for health care legislation, let alone cap-n-trade. Blue dogs are now fidgeting in their seats.
Complain about this comment
Obama began with a clean slate, no body knew his abilities (the people just HOPED he will be better than the last guy), for that matter even a few Democrats must have been ambiguous. Considering the mamoth expectations people have from him since November 2008 about the economy, all his efforts will take longer than anticipated time to show results. If America can give 8 years to Bush they can calmly give Obama four years before they begin tallying the balance sheet. Such assumptions / speculations are only in minority.
Complain about this comment
Trailer-park Jenny makes the same mistake most Americans do. The president does not have that much power domestically. Congress does. His original health-care proposal, for instance, was intended to create competition so that pharmaceutical companies and health-care providers would have to bring costs down in order to secure business. Congress then went to work. Given the close ties of our elected "repesentatives" to these very industries, it is no wonder that the original proposals were gutted and made more pleasing to their benefactors..
It is in the realm of foreign affairs that a president is truly accountable.
Complain about this comment
I wonder when people will wake up to the fact they have elected a president who has little experience and, except for writing books about himself and his father, has not done very much except speak loudly about change.
Complain about this comment
You missed the biggest election day story: Democrats won two congressional seats, in California and New York.
The New York seat had been held by Republicans continuously for the past 100 years!
Every prominent right-wing Republican --from Sarah Palin to Mike Huckabee to Rush Limbaugh-- campaigned for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman against the locally-chosen moderate Republican, Dede Scozzafava.
The latter responded by endorsing Democrat Bill Owens, whose victory adds as one more Congressional seat in President Obama's substantial majority.
Complain about this comment
A reaction to the administration in power is no surprise at all. It always happens.
What is suroprising is this: Obama never hid the fact that recovery would be long and difficult. Besides the bluster from the far right in America -- which has stepped off the rhetorical boat of reason -- and a host of other problems, he also faces an endemic need in the US for immediate solutions, for instant gratification. To blame him for a slow recovery is absurd, but no one, not even the MSM is willing to really say it for fear of being lambasted as a "Liberal".
One cannot fault the GOP for their strategy: It is diversion, diversion, diversion. Never let the democrats remind Americans who it was who actually got this whole mess going. It would be really great to remember that even when the economy recovers, companies are not rehiring.... because their fundamental aim is to dump as many people as possible. The government has a palliative function. It is the companies themselves that are outsourcing jobs, closing factories, firing workers and rehiring cheaper ones or having the remaining staff work double time with the existential fear of unemployment hanging over their heads like the sword of Damocles.
As for the young lady with her fear of equal health care.... well it's sort of tragic. I remember in 1984, after Reagan's voodoo economics had just crashed the economy and driven millions out of work, there were unemployed workers in Detroit who had lost everything and were eating catfood (I kid you not) still voting for Reagan, because they wanted a "strong America," whatever that meant. Meanwhile, the Great Communicator was selling manufacturing out lock, stock and barrel. And manufacturing is still the most sustainable sector of the economy. I'm not saying profitable. That goes to bankling and the like or becoming a monopoly and selling the world hinky software.
Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
Listening to the coverage it seems that the voters, Republican and Democrat, are uniformly angry that the 800 odd Billion dollar bailout went to the financiers, while they have lost their savings, many have lost their jobs or are in fear of loosing them, more have lost their homes and find it more difficult to get loans at any price - and yet the government is telling them to go out and spend, because there will be no recovery without them. Will the winners in the financial powerhouses make up for it all by spending their bonuses? Will they even pay the taxes due on them?
The stimulus, which is intended to create those jobs, is not much in evidence. Didn't all the incumbents loose except Mayor Bloomberg? And in the polling as many as 80 percent said it was all about the economy - on a local level.
I agree that it is too early to judge the new administration - but his opponents are very eager to dump their own culpability onto him, and hide their sins in the shadows of the people's anger. The Republicans are searching for their own souls - had the Conservative won in New York's lone House race - the new party would have had a particularly ugly face - and may well yet. Conjure something merging Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh in paint. A bloated, balding Sara - UGH!
The people need to save themselves by demanding that Congress do right by them - reform of the medical industry, regulation and reform of the financial industry, a sensible and swift resolution of our involvement in the Middle East. There is nothing in this election that answers that anger. Paralysis is more likely, but only because Red and Blue mixed makes a pack of snarling yellow dogs, as my grandfather said.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Something I don’t understand, people pay taxes to government, but don’t expect the government to give them basic things like health care back? Certain American complain that they pay bucket loads in taxes already what do they get back out of it.
I’ll through in a random ‘socialist’ thought, if I pay money to someone I expect some good or service back, unless I am being charitable. Now since I pay taxes to the government I expect to receive services that make my life easier. It seems to me getting a doctor when I want one, getting unemployment benefits if need them is a fair return on the thousands I pay the government. Oh and I never feel charitable about paying my hard earned money to the state!
Complain about this comment
Still not quite understanding how equal health care is wrong as I'm fairly certain that she'd benefit from it at times. Even if she had health insurance surely free competition would mean her current provider had to improve itself to compete and be profitable.
Complain about this comment
ref #3,4,8
Your comments seeem to reflect a core belief of the Democratic party if you are poor, you must support them.
I didn't expect the winner of the elction to wave a magic wand either, but there is nothing wrong with a person's inteligence for disputing Obama's policies.
I have less respect for a person's inteligence who blidnly votes a party line or votes for a political family's represetative.
Complain about this comment
ref #22
Joseph wrote:
You missed the biggest election day story: Democrats won two congressional seats, in California and New York.
The New York seat had been held by Republicans continuously for the past 100 years!
__________________-
I'd say that is the 2nd biggest story, I'd put Corzine lsoing first.
NJ is a blue state and usually with labor support dems win. Obama put a lot of his effort there. But Corzine did a pretty awful job as Gov. But christie is going to be facing the same problem rep gov have had in a mass a Democratic majority in the legislature controlled by special interests.
Owens win was suprising, I'd like to see the results and the affect the absentee ballots that went for the republican.
I now have hope that Mass voters might elect a Republican for Kennedy's seat. We owe the country that much.
Complain about this comment
Jenny in Roanoke doesn't strike me as someone who is politically intelligent - bless her. She's working class and poor living in a trailer. She claims she is normally a Republican! But voted for Obama last time around. Am I right in thinking that Republicans do not believe in State help? Anyway, why is she blaming Obama for her problems? What does she want him to do? You would have thought that lifting the burden of health insurance from her and her family would help, but she thinks this is wrong! If her views are common than many Americans have some sort of bi-polar disorder IMO.
Complain about this comment
"The New York seat had been held by Republicans continuously for the past 100 years!"
Wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York's_23rd_congressional_district
Complain about this comment
ref #22
Scozzfava was chosen by the local party machine not in a primary bit of a difference.
Voters do not like when they have no input.
Mass Voters were not happy that the Dems took a away their right to vote in an interm Senator. Even /democrats blasted the leadership and the hypocritical Ted Kennedy on this issue.
Complain about this comment
#20 Ms Marbles
It sounds as though national politics in the US is a complete waste of time. It's supporters may say that the constitution has finely balanced the powers of each, but at the same time ensures that nothing gets done - except right wing stuff of course (never understood why that is) which you would have thought would make the US Nation-State illegitimate. I have the feeling that I have more influence on British national politics as a British Subject then I ever would have in the US as an American so called Citizen!
And some Americans have the gall to criticise the EU's political system - they should look at their own first.
Complain about this comment
I think it's unfair to assume that these elections necessarily reflect upon President Obama. While I didn't vote in that particular race (since I'm not a New Jersey resident, I merely attend school there) I think Corzine is a total jerk. He cut a LOT of money for higher education and yet the professors' union mysteriously expected all of the professors to support Corzine, not only through their actions, but monetarily as well even though Corzine has spent roughly the GDP of Tunga on his campaign (I would post a reference but I can't remember who said that for the life of me, I think it was either the Philadelphia Inquirer or Philadelphia Daily News).
I'm also still sore about some "community service" I did through my college where me and a bunch of other students essentially ended up landscaping at the governor's summer home (while planting dune grass is definitely good for the environment, we were specifically told not to bother planting it out of the view of the building).
Also, while it has nothing to do with his politics what so ever, his comments in a NYT article about Christie being a huge Bruce Springsteen fan (“Last time I checked, Bruce Springsteen was for the working man, not giant corporations and the very wealthy” despite the fact that, last I checked not only does that have nothing to do with one's tastes, but Corzine isn't exactly in the poor house himself) and his focus on the fact that Christie is overweight says an awful lot about his character.
I'm not saying I'm Christie's biggest fan either (I generally dislike the cast majority of politicians) but I hope that this shows the Democratic party (as well as the GOP) that even states that traditionally vote one way can still support the other side when there is enough dissatisfaction over the current leadership (which I hope will raise the bar with future candidates but I'm not holding my breath either). I think both parties have become severely attached from the average citizen. That's why Obama won, because he was able to get in touch with average people, not just the extremists.
Complain about this comment
It must be ignorance, it seems people discard a different view as stupid and that is more foolish then anything the lady thinks.
Complain about this comment
Obama made many promises he could never have kept. His bipartisanship promise is one example. Our country was polarized and politics was extremely partisan, yet he promised it knowing full well the climate. Now, it's the Republicans' fault that he cannot achieve it?
Obama consistently over-promised. Few questioned how he would deliver on those promises, so he was very free with them.
Complain about this comment
#34 Xavi
Is that because you agree with her? If anyone has blatant contradictions in their arguments they should be exposed. It's the first measure one should use in the validity of an argument. Jenny's arguments have been exposed as contradictory at a basic level.
Complain about this comment
ref #32
The EU is worthy of contemp they can't seem to get anything done. When they have a chance to have Tony blair represent them it would be a no brainer. But do they?
You are correct about elected officials not wanting to get things done. But blame the party of the Status quo which is the Dems. No tort reform, no ss reform, no free trade agreements since Nafta, no dialouge
Complain about this comment
Instead of comparing the US federal government to any single country's government, consider it more like an EU government. Then consider the act of handing over the management of your health care to it.
Complain about this comment
As an outside observer my first thoughts are these ....
Virginia - not a great surprise - it was a shock win for Obama and so it was fairly predictable that a swing back was likely.
New Jersey - so the "fat" advert didn't put people off Christie!!! Looks like Corzine was struggling in his campaign, clutching at straws and fell victim - a bigger deal certainly.
However a good thing to know would be the voter turn-out and the demographic thereof. There was a suggestion that the new voters for Obama - young, ethnic minority etc - did not show in the numbers hoped for, and so the old white guys'n'galls had the run of it. Anyone got any stats?
Either way the first major elections after a big win can often show a rebound bounce - and in this case it was highly predictable due to the fact that the world is taking longer than 9 months to fix and people are obviously so "short-term" in outlook now that they see this as a failure on the part of Obama.
That said, is it fair to say that gubernatorial elections often go more on local issues and thus are not necessarily an opinion poll on the incumbant in the White House.
And finally on to poor Jenny - while I agree that her vote is as valid as anyone's and should be respected, I still believe her rationale should be called to question. She patently does not understand the issues or what socialised healthcare really means. She is certainly not alone as the truth is spun so fast one way or the other that Joe (or Jenny) Public can't make head or tail of it.
These vox pops with real people are all very well, but they don't give us any more than a talking point.
What about finding a highly educated rep or dem who has switched and have them explain their "reasoning" for this, not just another woe-is-me-my-life-sucks-and-it's-all-obamas-fault soundbite.
Complain about this comment
38.A AndreaNY wrote:
"Instead of comparing the US federal government to any single country's government, consider it more like an EU government. Then consider the act of handing over the management of your health care to it."
It's nothing like the EU government - and anyway the EU individual countries all have functionning universl healthcare systems, so it's not a valid comparison.
How about you give us your best idea for solving the healthcare problem in the US - if you believe there is one!
Do you think the drug companies and insurers are part of the problem?
Does "single payer" make good economic sense - economies of scale in bureaucracy at least?
Do you think every citizen should have the right to basic affordable care?
So you don't trust the government, as so many of your compatriots. What would you do instead? Please answer - I really am interested to hear other ideas.
Complain about this comment
ref #39
What about finding a highly educated rep or dem who has switched and have them explain their "reasoning" for this, not just another woe-is-me-my-life-sucks-and-it's-all-obamas-fault soundbite.
_________________________-
Sounds good as long that highly educated person is not a blame Bush person as well.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me rather normal that there is "voter remorse" after any election and those who have it normally wouldn't be surprised if they did their homework before voting. It is also no small wonder that in the U.S. the identification with the existing political parties has dropped to historic lows. In more mature democratic societies "Centrist" parties seem to emerge and I keep wishing for one here.
Complain about this comment
I am someone who supported Obama and am disillusioned. I am not expecting any quick fixes yet am expecting him to say what he means and do what he says. He used the American people to get elected, told us that we shouldn't live in fear and that we could be empowered to change America. He said on one of his debates that AIG went on a $400,000 junket and that they should have to give it back. Then what did he do? He gave them billions in bonuses and only amended it after there was a public outcry. He said that we need to be fiscally responsible. Then what did he do? He paid more for Citibank stock than if he had bought it on the stock exchange. He says that we need healthcare for everybody and that it will help small businesses. Then what does he want to do? He wants everyone except for those earning less than $12,000 a year to buy it from a health care company who are already charging people $500 per person per month and discounting many valid claims when he could expand medicare/medicaid. He said he was going to adopt "a mutt like me". And what did he do? He got a Portugese Water Dog from the Kennedys. He says we shouldn't live in fear. And what does he do? Declare the mildest flu in 60 years to be a national emergency. I think his actions are an insult to any educated person in America. I understand that there is a monster of a political machine but that doesn't mean that he can't set an example himself.
Complain about this comment
As sure as the sun comes up in the morning, when liberals suffer a defeat (and the governors elections' may not be that important), they always respond by denigrating the intelligence of those who do not agree with them. In New Jersey, the mess we are in made the most impact on the election. Whether Obama helped or hurt Corzine, I could not say. I believe it did not matter to the New Jersey voters.
Complain about this comment
How is she buying a house unemployed?Besides she is ignorant.Obama is a President.Congress writes and decides what happens with our tax money only they can collect.Obama can only persuade Congress not walk in there make their votes for them.That is my frustration not Obama but Congress,and what does a Governor have to do with it.A Governor has no authority over Federal laws.The states can't over ride the federal government.Vote for better federal Senators and Congressmen if you want better federal government.Why interview her to begin with?We really need to better educate people on how Government works.Congress is who really sucks no matter what party.Like a silly club of over rich or silly intellectuals playing with people.Our economy didn't break over night it can't be fix over night.We have been out sourcing since the late 90's and deregulating for years since Nixon and every President and Congress since eventually it was going to hit the fan.I amazed how things aren't worse.I am angry they haven't put back regulations for banking,outsourcing,taxing,tax right offs for Corporations,stock regulations,labor rights,trade negotiations,Corporate Welfare,and Bankruptcy Laws,etc.....That is Congress.And no State official can change that.Only Congress.Employment will eventually rise but I am tired off politicians and Corporations walking all over Middle-Class.
Complain about this comment
40. RomeStu:
"How about you give us your best idea for solving the healthcare problem in the US - if you believe there is one!"
************************
Ahhh..so if I question Obama, I had better have a solution of my own?
Well, for starters, I did not promise to reduce health care costs and improve outcomes at the same time. I did not make promises about "reforming" health care, and I did not promise to have a bill in, what was it, 3 months? In other words, I'm not the one making promises I cannot keep.
As for my ideas, they have always been focused on the state and local levels. The only innovation taking place in our health care system is at the hospital and state level. I'd like to see the states try to tackle the problem.
Rising health care costs (and overuse) are tied to every single participant in the system, including doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, patients, drug companies, etc. Focusing on insurance companies has been myopic, leading me to believe that Democrats focused on them because theirs is the piece they want most for the government.
I really don't believe that a government-run health care system that denies care based on a panel of experts, which bases its decisions on outcomes-based medicine, is a good alternative to what we have now. I wonder about people who think that denial of coverage will be more palatable when it comes from the government instead of an insurance company.
Complain about this comment
39. RomeStu: "What about finding a highly educated rep or dem who has switched and have them explain their "reasoning" for this, not just another woe-is-me-my-life-sucks-and-it's-all-obamas-fault soundbite."
**************************
Since Independents are reportedly the ones disappointed in Obama, it shouldn't be too hard to find them and discuss their views. The question is whether they'll be intelligent enough for you to accept their reasoning.
Intelligence levels vary among our voters. The intelligence level of many who voted for Obama would mirror this woman's.
Complain about this comment
If people want to send a message to Banks and Insurance Companies have a massive Boycott.Put money in Credit Unions and healthy people should Boycott Insurance Companies even if it was for One Month the revenue lost would be massive.I know my family isn't using the $150 a week we pay PPO insurance(no clue what husbands Company Pays as well)not including our dental and optical.WE ALREADY STOP 401k.And put money in savings and pick our own stocks and Bonds through Credit Union.Plus if we don't like China having our debt buy American debt like during World Wars get it out of foreign hands do our own people a favor.
Complain about this comment
Carmenhasamisinformedopinion.
AIG scammed the people as they had been doing for a long time. Obama cant (or wont and shouldnt) demand them to behave outside the current legal framework by fiat to prevent them from doing it again. If citi stock had been bought for market prices, they would not have been capitalized by the transaction, the whole point of buying the stock. The insurance mandate is a great value (with the subsidies) if the companies are required to provide the product without discrimination and denied benefits (exactly how its being done).. 40k people die every year in the States from lack of insurance and access to healthcare.
Jenny in the article and carmen illustrate the great laziness of Americans to think of the big picture and see things for what they are by complex analysis, which is why there will be wavering support for dems, but not enough to lose power. One can not just judge what Obama is doing, but what Obama does in comparison to possible Republicans (McCain Palin perhaps). The republican bill for healthcare reform presented yesterday was a joke that costs the same, but expands insurance by 2-3% of the population. Its sad really that they dont take it more seriously for the peoples sake.. But they know that the only people who vote for them are on medicare, wealthy with insurance, or ignorant trailer trash voting on "values".
Complain about this comment
I'm appauled by some of the comments on here attacking the lady from Roanoke. You all do not really know her and you attack her as an ignorant hick. I think Mark is doing a fantasic job thus far trying to be in the center, giving both sides at the most unbias effort possible. Just because she has a difference in opinion doesn't make her less of a person.
As for some people that scream that Obama is cleaning a mess left by Bush, my question to you all is this: "When does that mess becomes Obama's?" 6 months, 1 year, 4 years, 8 years, Never? At some point, it is going to be his if he likes it or not; for a lot of people, like the lady in Roanoke, it already is now.
Mark, keep up the good work!
Complain about this comment
#43 Carmen
If Congress stops your President from fulfilling his promises then what do you want him to do? It seems to me that you need to elect people into Congress who will help or agree with the President you voted for - voting in Republicans and blue-dog Democrats will be like shooting yourself in the foot.
Complain about this comment
There must be balance in the force...
I'm not surprised that, as Obama's actions are perceived as fiscally liberal, there is a shift towards the fiscally conservative. I've mentioned before that our system seems to be designed for gridlock. I don't think we're there yet, but states will balance themselves. Yin, meet Yang.
As for Jenny Virginia, I was able to buy my first home this year too! And I'm rather happy about that First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit of up to $8000 for homes purchased this tax year. I found that to be a change I could believe in. And move into. And enjoy.
-- Maybe Jenny will notice the credit next April?
In New Jersey, the most TV & radio adverts I heard (here in Philly/Camden) were of Christie playing back Corzine's quote for NJ Voters to "Hold him accountable." I kinda felt like the quote was out of context, but... there it was.
Meanwhile, I will refrain from congratulating New York. Go Phillies.
Complain about this comment
As I read these comments, I get a great sense of arrogance from Obama supporters as to Jenny's vote (and even her right to vote because she "doesn't measure up"), with very little empathy towards her situation. This is the same arrogance that is so prevalent at the national level, and is the reason I predict that the Democrats will lose a large number of seats in the legislature next year.
Complain about this comment
Purely from an outsiders point of view I am not really sure of the importance of these election results since they don’t change anything, apparently. The results seem a combination of the personalities of the candidates and certain sections of society feeling 9 months can over turn something building for decades (Faeyth hit the nail right on the head).
As for Jenny the voter, as presented, her reasons for her vote do appear to naïve and simplistic. It appears she expected Obama to wave some magic wand and turn back the largest economic decline in 7 decades in about 9 months, sorry does anyone really think that is actually possible. It also seemed that she felt the president was at fault for losing her job and not getting that nice new house, for some reason.
It doesn’t matter whether she voted Dem or Rep the reasons she gave were weak. Sadly there are too many voters both here and in the US who appear to not think before voting, then ask themselves why things don’t turn out the way they wanted.
Complain about this comment
My analysis of this is:
There has been no political realignment toward the left
The magic of Obama has waned
Democrats in competitive districts need to be careful how they vote over the next year
Shame on those of you who smear the woman from Roanaoke; people like her can smell liberal elitism from a mile away; too many Democrats want the poor to take their govt handouts, vote for them, shut up and go away.
Complain about this comment
ref #50
washuotaku wrote:
I'm appauled by some of the comments on here attacking the lady from Roanoke. You all do not really know her and you attack her as an ignorant hick. I think Mark is doing a fantasic job thus far trying to be in the center, giving both sides at the most unbias effort possible. Just because she has a difference in opinion doesn't make her less of a person.
_________________--
Same people who denigrate the Tea Party protesters, Fox News and anyone who differs from their mantra.
Complain about this comment
ref #52
In New Jersey, the most TV & radio adverts I heard (here in Philly/Camden) were of Christie playing back Corzine's quote for NJ Voters to "Hold him accountable." I kinda felt like the quote was out of context, but... there it was.
Meanwhile, I will refrain from congratulating New York. Go Phillies.
____________________-
When I was in the tri-state area I heard nastiness from both sides. Christies weight often.
Go Phillies from a Boston fan, but your 76ers got crushed last night.
Banner 18 coming.
Complain about this comment
46. AndreaNY wrote:
"Ahhh..so if I question Obama, I had better have a solution of my own?"
Ahhhh .. you are putting words in my mouth.
I am merely asking for your ideas toward a solution, rather than a barrage of criticism. I personnaly don't think Obama went far enough with his proposals.
"Well, for starters, I did not promise to reduce health care costs and improve outcomes at the same time. I did not make promises about "reforming" health care, and I did not promise to have a bill in, what was it, 3 months? In other words, I'm not the one making promises I cannot keep."
No, but you are critical - I was just wondering if you have counter-proposals to what Obama wants to do, or what many on this blog propose.
"I'd like to see the states try to tackle the problem."
It's an idea , but would that not put undue onus on low-population density states like Idaho and the Dakotas - with so few people paying taxes, how would they build enough hospitals to be "accessible" to everyone.
"Rising health care costs (and overuse) are tied to every single participant in the system, including doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, patients, drug companies, etc."
Here we are in total agreement .... apart from the bit about patients.
"Focusing on insurance companies has been myopic, leading me to believe that Democrats focused on them because theirs is the piece they want most for the government."
You think the democrats want to make a huge profit out of health? And do what with it? A yacht maybe, or some condos in the Bahamas .....
The profit segment is not a piece for any government to take, but simply waste money in a health system that benefits primarily the shareholders and employees of insurance companies.
"I really don't believe that a government-run health care system that denies care based on a panel of experts, which bases its decisions on outcomes-based medicine, is a good alternative to what we have now."
Don't get into the "death panels" thing - it simply isn't true.
No system is perfect, but you must weigh up the moral balance of spending lots of money to unnaturally prolong the life of someone who has had a good life already, and spending the same money to provide simply yet vital care to the poorest members of society.
"I wonder about people who think that denial of coverage will be more palatable when it comes from the government instead of an insurance company."
No one is denied coverage under NHS type systems - but obviously budgets mean that not all treatment could be available to everyone when they want it. That's just a fact of life.
You are being disingenuous in suggesting that the government would deny coverage, however insurance companies in no respect have the interests of the patient at heart. They deny coverage to the poor who can't afford it, and they exclude pre-existing conditions, or repeats of previous conditions .... even after you've paid all those premiums.
There is no comparison economically or morally .... so despite the fact that it is never going to be a perfect system you must chose whether you want the best system for YOU or the best system for the good of the PEOPLE.
Complain about this comment
47 andrea
"Since Independents are reportedly the ones disappointed in Obama, it shouldn't be too hard to find them and discuss their views. The question is whether they'll be intelligent enough for you to accept their reasoning."
Andrea, if they could reason their argument I would accept it. What I do no accept is dogmatic rhetoric based on poor understanding of the economy. I am very open to other ideas, as long as they can be backed up.
"Intelligence levels vary among our voters. The intelligence level of many who voted for Obama would mirror this woman's."
This is indisputably true, but I fail to see the relevance to this thread of comments - no one has asked that soundbites be given from under-educated Obama supporters.
Complain about this comment
As I wrote on 606, I have given up on Analysis. The reason I have given up on analysis is that their is a tendency by so called experts to over anaylyze what actually happened. There are a lot of things that need to be said about off year election that aren't being taken into account. Especially in the case of this President
1. Voter turn out tends to be lower than in a Presidential election. Where as the Presidential year tends to get a turn out of about 60-65%, the turnout for elections the following year tends to be around 30-35%. PArt of this is a feeling by those who voted for the winning candidate becoming neglect and taking things for granted.
2. The approval ratings for President Obama are extremely high in both Jersey and Virgina. The problem was that the candidate who ran this time was really rather weak and unable to articulate his own vision. In the case of Virginia, Corzine was never really liked and was there was actually a third party candidate who may have influence the outcome of the race.
I think there has been too much over analysis.
As I said yesterday, the Biggest race of the night may well have been the 23rd Congressional District in New York. If you haven't heard, for the first time in 150 years, a Democrat will be representing that district in the House of Representatives. The reason this race drew so much attention was because it exposed a major split with in the Republican Party. IT exposed the way the extreme right of the Republican party is conducting a war with party moderates. It is a battle that will continued to be waged in next years congressional elections. The sad thing is, that if the conservatives had swallowed their pride and backed the Republican candidate they would have won that seat. Instead theyre quest for ideological purity has cost them an election and will continue to cost them elections.
Complain about this comment
"The turkey hunters I talked to yesterday hoped for a Republican revival and they certainly appear to have got one." (from Mardell)
One election of a couple of governors does not constitute a "Republican revival." Virginia has long been a "red" state, even though it is more in play than it used to be. That they would elect a Republican governor is not surprising and of no significance nationally.
The Congressional elections are more significant. The Democrats held a seat in California (expected) and took a seat in New York in Republican territory. The New York seat was lost because the most conservative Republicans drove the centrist Republican candidate out of the race. The self-destructiveness of the Republican Party continues and it is good news for the Democratic Party.
Complain about this comment
carmen (#43) thinks the H1N1 flu is not an emergency? Tell that to the parents of children who have been killed by it.
Washington Post
Best to leave decisions on these matters to the responsible authorities instead of using them for political purposes, I think.
Complain about this comment
"These results will give Republicans a sense of enthusiasm, of momentum and may demoralise some Democrats. It may make some, up for election next year, nervous about supporting bold policies, like the public option in healthcare." (from Mardell, above)
Here's another view on the course Democrats should take with the public option, from George Curry.
The President should stick with his program and the Congress should pass a health care bill before the Congressional election next November. It's still too early to say whether it will include the public option; it depends on what can get past a Senate filibuster.
My view is that a majority of Americans want a health care bill, and the Democrats should call the bluff of the Senate Republicans. Present a bill acceptable to the majority of American voters, preferably with some sort of public option, and dare the Senate Republicans to kill it. Then if it fails, that's the issue in the election.
Complain about this comment
58. RomeStu: "I am merely asking for your ideas toward a solution, rather than a barrage of criticism. I personnaly don't think Obama went far enough with his proposals."
It is hardly a "barrage of criticism" to point out that Obama over-promised. Do you deny that he made those promises? If not, what are voters to make of them?
*********
"I'd like to see the states try to tackle the problem.
It's an idea , but would that not put undue onus on low-population density states like Idaho and the Dakotas - with so few people paying taxes, how would they build enough hospitals to be "accessible" to everyone."
Great question. The money the feds would spend on this would be better spent by the Governors, in my opinion. They're closer to the problem and have to account for results. I'm not against funded mandates.
*********
"Rising health care costs (and overuse) are tied to every single participant in the system, including doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, patients, drug companies, etc.
Here we are in total agreement .... apart from the bit about patients."
You are mistaken if you believe patients don't demand services that are questionable in their value.
*********
"Focusing on insurance companies has been myopic, leading me to believe that Democrats focused on them because theirs is the piece they want most for the government.
You think the democrats want to make a huge profit out of health? And do what with it? A yacht maybe, or some condos in the Bahamas .....
The profit segment is not a piece for any government to take, but simply waste money in a health system that benefits primarily the shareholders and employees of insurance companies."
How much money do you really believe will be added to the health care market by eliminating insurance company profits?
*********
"I really don't believe that a government-run health care system that denies care based on a panel of experts, which bases its decisions on outcomes-based medicine, is a good alternative to what we have now."
Don't get into the "death panels" thing - it simply isn't true."
Do your homework. Dig deeply.
*********
"I wonder about people who think that denial of coverage will be more palatable when it comes from the government instead of an insurance company.
No one is denied coverage under NHS type systems - but obviously budgets mean that not all treatment could be available to everyone when they want it. That's just a fact of life.
You are being disingenuous in suggesting that the government would deny coverage, however insurance companies in no respect have the interests of the patient at heart. They deny coverage to the poor who can't afford it, and they exclude pre-existing conditions, or repeats of previous conditions .... even after you've paid all those premiums."
I could say the same thing to you: You are being naive if you believe that coverage will not be denied.
*********
"There is no comparison economically or morally .... so despite the fact that it is never going to be a perfect system you must chose whether you want the best system for YOU or the best system for the good of the PEOPLE."
Last I checked, I am the PEOPLE.
************
Listen to these two NPR segments on health care -- 10/9 and 10/16. Really interesting.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Archive.aspx
Complain about this comment
63. GH1618: Calling the bluff of Republicans won't exactly help the Democrats whose constituents don't support a public option.
Complain about this comment
If Jenny had voted for McCain and today announced her support for Obama, she would be applauded for "seeing the light". Instead, she has returned to her original political standings and is treated as poor, ignorant, trailer trash. Jenny most likely made her decision to vote for Obama based on over-the-top campaign events, glowing TV advertisements, and blatantly biased media coverage. Jenny is not ignorant, she was simply fooled by an overwhelming political machine.
Obama did indeed state things would take time and not be immediate, but he also fully played up the aura that great and grand things will happen once he's President. He made every effort to appear larger than life; he played on people's hope for something better.
Like all other politicians he promised more than he can deliver, but his supporters seem content to lay the blame on anyone and everyone except the top man himself. He IS the top man; the success and failures of this country rest on his shoulders whether or not he deserves the credit or blame.
The elections of yesterday may mean nothing in the long run, a year is a long time in politics. Or perhaps it is the start of more Jenny's around the country deciding 2008 was a mistake. In my opinion, blind allegiance to Obama is worse than changing your mind for reasons that may or may not be logical.
Complain about this comment
It never fails to amaze me how often this line is used to diregard a person's vote. Government by the people & for the people is supposed to represent & act on the will of the people, not dictate to the people what is best for them. Why not respect her vote rather than question her motives or her intelligence.
It wasn't her vote, or her right to vote stupidly, that I was disrespecting. It was HER I was disrespecting. And I don't have to question her intelligence. She put the lack thereof on display for all to see. And her magical thinking that now blames Obama for everything that's wrong with America tells me exactly what her motives are: Me, me me! First!
Walk a mile in her shoes? How about she walk an inch in his, right now, and see if she can do any better. Obama didn't even get a grace period before he was attacked on all sides. Right, left and center. Everybody with their hands out. "Fix this, fix that, fix the world. Make it all better! Give us jobs! Save our homes! End corruption! Give us universal health care! Stop the war! Make Congress obey!" What is this, a dictatorship? An absolute monarchy? He can't just order it done and have his minions enforce the law. He cannot order the banksters arrested, tried and executed for their crimes.
But where is Jenny's sense of personal responsibility in all of this? The knowledge of who and what Bush, Cheney and the neocon hordes were and what they would do if given the chance was out there long before he even ran for the presidency the first time. Heck, they even published a manifesto written by William Kristol that called for preemptive war and complete deregulation of banking and industry.
By the way, do you know what GWB's good friend Henry Kissenger calls people like Jenny, not to mention you and I? "Useless eaters." We are the disposable poor - even the middle classes. Our work has no value, except as a means to their wealth. Our lives have no value, except as a means to their security. Our health is of no value, unless it be to provide a necessary vaccine that keeps the lesser Humans from spreading disease to the 1 per cent of people who do count.
People need to stop listening to entertainers like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann and start reading what the politicians themselves write, and whose ideas they subscribe to - and then study those as well. That's how it used to be done in America. A candidate's lifetime of speeches and writings would be published in pamphlets or in newspapers and the people would read them so they could better understand what the candidate believed and was likely to do if elected. And once the candidate for the Presidency was chosen, he would retire to his home for the duration and make no public statements. It was considered unseemly to personally campaign for the office. Everything the candidate had to say, everything he believed, was already in publication and available for the people to use to make an informed decision.
But an informed voter is just what most crooked politicians don't want. And the ideologues who despise the voters as useless eaters certainly don't want them knowing how they really feel. So they mock the intellectuals and convince those whose gifts don't run to being book smart that having general knowledge makes you weak; an elitist commie-socialist who's out to destroy your way of life and take away your bible and your gun. Well, I'm a Liberal Democrat with a bible and a gun. And as one of those gay-loving, pro-choice intellectuals, I'm not about to give up either. Because I don't trust anyone who says I'm just a "useless eater" and of no account except as a tool for their personal enrichment.
If people like Jenny want to get on board the cattle cars with joyous abandon, believing that they too, as party members, are amongst the Chosen Ones, then by all means, let them do so. But they're not taking me with them and they are voting against their own best interests. At least a socialist won't tell me I have no value, because they believe everybody counts, and everyone ought to have equal access to financial opportunity, education and health care - even the poor.
Complain about this comment
Obama won Virginia by less than a percentage point and that was with a very large turnout by minority voters. So there should be no surprise or indication that this means anything. It is amazing that the Rebublicans have been able to shift the blame for problems they caused onto the President but thruth has never had anything to do with Virginia politics. I guess the results of unrestricted captialism by the Bush/Cheney clan didn't do enough harm to Virginians and they are begging for more abuse from the private sector. Virginia was founded by an investment company, The Virginia Company. It was settled by merchants trying to make some money and has continued as a business state. The founding fathers would be dismayed that the poor in Virginia are persuded to vote against their own best interest, but it has always been that way in Virginia. There was little government when the British ruled, only garrisons of soldiers to enforce whatever the merchants in London wanted. So it was, in fact, that the founders created "big" government in Virginia. They must roll over in their graves to hear how their ideas of equality have been used to promote the rich in the Commonwealth. When the new governor is faced with revenue shortfalls and begins cutting popular programs a cry will arise. But of course his supporters are not attached to education. Virginia benefits from geography and hasn't produced many thinkers in a century or two. Madison, the brightest of the bunch, was very leary of bankers and businessmen, and would be surprised that they now run the state. Virginia takes another step backwards as most of the surrounding states move forward. If not for federal funding Virginia would be a swamp.
Complain about this comment
15. At 05:39am on 04 Nov 2009, BienvenueEnLouisiana wrote:
My problem with the statement I commented on in post 8 is that it all too often comes off as being disparaging and elitist. Gavrielle_LaPoste might as well have called Ms. Jenny trailer trash.
Yes, it was disparaging - deliberately so. And yes, I am an elitist. But since I've always wanted to buy my own trailer home and park it on some nice quiet bit of land, I'm not about to go calling anyone trailer trash. It isn't where you live that counts, it's where your head is at. And hers appears to be firmly stuck in the sand on some issues.
Complain about this comment
AndreaNY (#65) "Calling the bluff of Republicans won't exactly help the Democrats whose constituents don't support a public option."
That's what makes congressional politics interesting. Every member of Congress must take into account how the issue plays in his or her district. The problem is mainly in the Senate. There are enough votes in the House for the public option. Baucus (Senate Finance committee chairman) thinks there are not enough in the Senate. I'm sure there are others in the Senate counting noses to try to figure out what will pass.
If a bill comes before the Senate and is killed by a filibuster, the onus will fall almost entirely on the Republicans, I expect. If a Democratic senator opposes the bill, will he (or she) necessarily vote against cloture? We'll see what happens.
Complain about this comment
#35. 2009, AndreaNY: "Obama made many promises he could never have kept."
We won't know that for another three years. As I recall, he never gave a timeframe for the changes he wished to make.
#66. Will: "(Jenny) is treated as poor, ignorant, trailer trash. Jenny most likely made her decision to vote for Obama based on over-the-top campaign events, glowing TV advertisements, and blatantly biased media coverage. Jenny is not ignorant, she was simply fooled by an overwhelming political machine."
So you are suggesting that everyone was similarly fooled and that the McCain-Palin campaign had nothing to say? Jenny had every opportunity to compare the two candidates and opted for the one which would do her the most good. Had McCain won, does she think he would have made better progress than Mr Obama? The only television outlet which would have unreservedly praised him would have been Fox, which daily denigrates the President. Jenny voted with her empty pocket book assuming that it would miraculously be filled - possibly for the first time. She appears to have a lot in common with bonus-bankers: greed.
Complain about this comment
Mark - you seem to enjoy pointing out situations/people which fuels the stereotypical fires: guns, backwoods, trailers, etc. which seems to give a certain satisfaction to those who think they know the USA/its people & "the trouble with Americans is......." and just opens up the opportunity for the usual nasty remarks and cheap shots from the usuals!
On the other boot, American correspondent in UK gets all of his information from lager louts, council housing estate dwellers, football hooligans, and those nasty individuals who belong to BNP, etc. Actually, since we're a small/population condensed island, the above might more represent truth!! Ouch! (of course I know that not to be true, horrible to think that some might think it the truth, though?)
There are many of you who post here who are truly well versed in politics, I appreciate some of your info I would guess the age group is up in years though? Only a guess/assumption. Many Americans that I know in the same "up in years" age group are also very informed political/historical/geographical
I wouldn't want GB to be judged on the political intellect of the youngsters of today, who are no different than those youngsters in the USA. There's exceptions to the rules of course, and I'm sure there are some "young" posters here who really know there stuff.
I am never impressed when those who are (or think they are) more knowledgeable/educated, etc., put those people down who might not have those abilities or not had educational advantages, or the best living conditions.
Wisdom doesn't come with the above attributes, living and experience does. That turkey hunter toting his gun might just surprise us! He has the patience to sit up all night, that tells me something!
As for the health care issue - when somebody who posts here has read the bill and can explain it in simple terms what it REALLY means - the politicians can't seem to make heads nor tails of it - that would be really helpful! I've only physically seen it, and the size of it is frightening, and it's not clear as to what is "hidden" in the Bill.
Complain about this comment
AndreaNY (#65) "Calling the bluff of Republicans won't exactly help the Democrats whose constituents don't support a public option."
Does "NY" mean New York? According to an article in Time, Senator Schumer of New York is for the public option.
Complain about this comment
It seems Mr. Obama has lost not only Republicans naive enough to see in him an agent for change, but almost most if not all Independents; further proof to emerge after 2010 Congressional elections.
American people, on the other hand, have lost their president and Commander-in-Chief soon after they elected him, for Mr. Obama, to date, has been AWOL from day one, unable to make any decision on any important issue, be that health care, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea or ballistic missile defence.
Well, we'll remember in November.
Complain about this comment
#63 GH1618,
My view is that a majority of Americans want a health care bill, and the Democrats should call the bluff of the Senate Republicans. Present a bill acceptable to the majority of American voters, preferably with some sort of public option, and dare the Senate Republicans to kill it. Then if it fails, that's the issue in the election.
Please explain how Republicans can prevent any legislation from moving forward in congress? Their votes are not required and they have no power to stop anything. The only ones holding up legislation are Democrats.
Complain about this comment
re: 25. David Murrell:
One thing to remember is that federal tax dollars are not distributed uniformly back to states on a per capita basis. There are net losers and net gainers. On a per capita basis, generally the states with the higher population densities and greater industrialization have been net losers (meaning that citizens pay more to the federal government than they get back in federal spending). The more rural states are net gainers. That's partly because of highway spending, spending on national parks, military spending, etc. Oddly enough, many of the more conservative states where people complain about "socialism" benefit heavily from federal spending. Most of the military bases are in the South, for example. Alaska is a huge recipient of federal money on a per capita basis, in spite of its facade of rugged individualism.
About yesterday's election: Off-year elections usually draw a different group of voters than presidential elections. Turnout is usually lower and the voters are usually more committed than voters in a presidential election. As a result the vote reflects the size of a party's established base in a particular state more than the sentiments of the population as a whole.
Complain about this comment
CamberwellBeauty (#72) "As for the health care issue - when somebody who posts here has read the bill and can explain it in simple terms what it REALLY means - the politicians can't seem to make heads nor tails of it - that would be really helpful! I've only physically seen it, and the size of it is frightening, and it's not clear as to what is "hidden" in the Bill."
Bills do tend to be daunting, don't they. And there are usually at least two, one from each side of Congress. Here is a link to a site discussing the House version:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show
No bill you can read today will be the final version. That will come from a House-Senate conference committee.
Complain about this comment
In what parallel universe is powermeerkat (#74) living?
Complain about this comment
Re #78
Not the one called Obamamistan, that's for sure. :-)
Complain about this comment
Mark: '"She described what he's doing as "horrible" and thinks his plans for "equal health care" are wrong."
And did she provide specific reasons why she believes this so strongly? Did you ask her? Perhaps you should.
"Equal health care," in my opinion, and I believe should be in the opinion of any sane person, is a no brainer. The healthyer and more educated a society, the more its citizenry can give back to it and contribute to the outside world. Where's the bad in that?
As I've said countless times before, every other country's citizens get to have it!! I want it too!! Give me Give me Give me Now Now Now!!
Complain about this comment
ref 72 CamberwellBeauty
Yes, I'm getting up there in years, I'll be 50 come September. Yes, I said I was an elitist, but that's because I know I'm better and smarter than everyone else ;)
Actually, I was one of those disadvantaged kids. I grew up in a housing project in the Bronx, surrounded by gangs and violence. I went to public schools and city colleges. My parents were low wage white collar workers. But my parents believed in education. They read books and newspapers. They had friends of every color and religion. And when times were hard they ate pasta, so my sister and I could eat meat and vegetables. One year, when my sister needed medicine and my father was out of work, my mother did without a winter coat. She ended up with bronchitis and to this day has trouble breathing.
But I am not unique. And my lifetime of experience tells me that to think only of myself is wrong. I may not have much use for some people, but I would never deny them their right to go to hell in a hand basket of their own making as it were. In fact, I will fight for their right to do so. On the other hand, I will also fight to improve their lives, even if they wouldn't ever have lifted a finger to improve mine.
Complain about this comment
75. At 6:20pm on 04 Nov 2009, rodidog wrote:
Please explain how Republicans can prevent any legislation from moving forward in congress? Their votes are not required and they have no power to stop anything. The only ones holding up legislation are Democrats.
Blue Dog Democrats, i.e. Conservative Democrats are holding things up in the Senate.
And as for health care. It's now only one Independent: Joe Lieberman. Old Joe hails from Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world. Why do you imagine he's holding things up?
Complain about this comment
# 71 David_Cunard
"So you are suggesting that everyone was similarly fooled and that the McCain-Palin campaign had nothing to say?"
Certainly not, but there are a lot of people out there from different political spectrums who thought one thing and are getting something else with this President. Is that the voter's fault for not understanding? Ultimately, yes; but it is wrong in my opinion to place on people like Jenny the kinds of insulting labels that have been in this thread. Compared to Obama's sleak and slick campaign there was really nothing McCain could have said to win that election. In the age of modern politics, Obama played a game like none have seen before and it paid off.
You say Jenny had every opportunity to compare the choices; logically this is true, but perhaps she didn't. Trying to find/keep a job, struggling to move up and out, raising a family; not everyone has time to devote daily to reading dozens of articles, hundreds of blogs, and tomes of political writings to make a so-called informed decision.
As unfortunate as it is, most people make their decision to vote based on 30 second TV spots, not in-depth reviews of the individuals running. Sometimes we get lucky and actually elect a decent official; more often than not we stick ourselves with more of the same. Such is the case with Obama, more of the same.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
"Many of both parties are reserving judgment. But of course voters can't do that, they have to make a choice."
Oh, no they don't. They can abstain simply by not bothering to vote... which they seem to have done in large numbers.
Complain about this comment
Ref 76 timohio-
"About yesterday's election: Off-year elections usually draw a different group of voters than presidential elections. Turnout is usually lower and the voters are usually more committed than voters in a presidential election. As a result the vote reflects the size of a party's established base in a particular state more than the sentiments of the population as a whole."
Most of the voter turn-out tallies for yesterday are not yet available in whole. I have been looking at enough numbers to take a good guess that the usual 1/3 of registered voters took the time to exercise their franchise for the good of their communities in this off-year election.
I agree that it is rather difficult to make sweeping conclusions from such a small voter response in these elections. The only one obvious conclusion is that the U.S. public really does not care who runs their government. Especially their local government where they have the ability to be most influential. What happened to all those newly, political-active people that were marching on Washington and telling us a couple months ago how they were going to start taking action?
The dog must have ate their homework. Maybe they had to wash their hair.
On a personal note: Great to see you back, timohio.
Complain about this comment
rodidog (#75) "Please explain how Republicans can prevent any legislation from moving forward in congress?"
I assume you are not American. The U. S. Senate rules allow unlimited debate, unless 60 members vote for "cloture," which sets a limit to the debate on a particular bill. There currently are 59 Democrats in the Senate and one Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. If all of these support cloture, a Republican effort to talk a bill to death (filibuster) would fail, however the Democrats cannot rely an 100% of the votes in their caucus. That is why Senate Democratic leaders have been courting the support of (Republican) Senator Snowe of Maine. If there is a filibuster of the health care bill, she is the one most likely to vote for cloture.
Complain about this comment
66 Will
"In my opinion, blind allegiance to Obama is worse than changing your mind for reasons that may or may not be logical."
But of course blind allegiance to the Republican party is fine, after all they offer so much to the least well off in society.
Faith and platitudes doesn't help people feed their families.
Complain about this comment
67 gavrielle
"A candidate's lifetime of speeches and writings would be published in pamphlets or in newspapers and the people would read them so they could better understand what the candidate believed and was likely to do if elected."
Or even better have the candidates publish their "personal manifesto" when they put themselves forward. Then we would know what they would plan to do, not what some media analyst tells us they may do.
Complain about this comment
Here's an analysis of the Democratic (including Lieberman) support for the public option in the Senate. I'm not vouching for this site or their poll; it's just something to consider.
Senate Whip Count Update
Note that Lieberman is counted against the public option.
Complain about this comment
81. Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
ref 72 CamberwellBeauty
Yes, I'm getting up there in years, I'll be 50 come September. Yes, I said I was an elitist, but that's because I know I'm better and smarter than everyone else ;)
Now, GLP - you know I've always enjoyed your posts, and I know(?) the above was tongue in cheek (please, let it be!!!).
Your growing up is not very unique for your age group or mine - I'm a little older than you. Your story was sort of a Tree Grows in Brooklyn version!
I grew up in post war London, a huge cockney family, no heat, gas lights, a lot of times no food of clothing, rats, mice, lice, bugs, you name it! I was one of six born with not much of a gap between us either. My father was the most educated, well read, informed individual I've known, ever known, actually. I think he went to school until he was about 13! My mother went out at night to clean when we were all in bed - probably one bed! Yes,we too grew up with hope and push from our parents,none of us ever went on beyond our secondary school educ., though, and we still suffered(?) from the stereotypical idea of what Cockneys were - the twin of trailer trash!
However, I can say, all 6 of us have gone on to disprove their ideas and have all turned out quiet intelligent and have been moderately successful in many ways and our offspring doing even better, just let me tell you about my Son.........ha!
We grew up with everyone looking out for each other, some did more than others, we had to to survive, literally. So, I am very familiar with the concept of helping someone who might not give a toss about me
As for health care (thanks for the link GH #77 - you mean I've got to read it??? Ha! Can't you give me a shorthand version, please? - just kidding)
I do think most/many(?) Americans want some some form of health care/insurance for everyone, (even those that have it know they could still loose everything if something catastrophic happens) but people make it out to sound like they are just this heartless nation of people who really don't care about others. I don't think that is true. They just want to know what does that Bill really mean? There's been cuts, changes, different versions, on and on, no wonder people can't get their head around it, even the intelligent ones like you GLP - have you?
Complain about this comment
ref #75
rodidog wrote:
#63 GH1618,
My view is that a majority of Americans want a health care bill, and the Democrats should call the bluff of the Senate Republicans. Present a bill acceptable to the majority of American voters, preferably with some sort of public option, and dare the Senate Republicans to kill it. Then if it fails, that's the issue in the election.
Please explain how Republicans can prevent any legislation from moving forward in congress? Their votes are not required and they have no power to stop anything. The only ones holding up legislation are Democrats.
______________________________-
You seem to assume that the Repub don't want a healthcare bill. they do but question the public option and the absence of tort reform.
Depending on which poll a majority of American do not liek the Pelosi or Reid bills.
Complain about this comment
67 gavrielle
"But an informed voter is just what most crooked politicians don't want. And the ideologues who despise the voters as useless eaters certainly don't want them knowing how they really feel. So they mock the intellectuals and convince those whose gifts don't run to being book smart that having general knowledge makes you weak"
Hit the nail on the head. Education reform anyone?
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle_LaPoste (#82) "Blue Dog Democrats, i.e. Conservative Democrats are holding things up in the Senate."
Wrong. The "Blue Dog" Democrats are a group of members of the House of Representatives.
Anyway, things are not being held up, they are being debated, and progress is being made, in both houses. Holding things up comes into play when a bill is put before the entire Senate, when a minority has the opportunity to prevent a vote by endless debate.
Complain about this comment
Re Jenny from Virginia
At least she voted! What was the turnout - 60% or so. Given the hype, marketing and state of the economy and the global situation the other 40% deserve a kick up the a%&e!
Complain about this comment
That link in #89 doesn't work properly, but if you go to "home" on the site and hunt around, you can find the whip count analysis.
Complain about this comment
# 87 RomeStu
"But of course blind allegiance to the Republican party is fine, after all they offer so much to the least well off in society."
I made no such argument. You appear to have misjudged my critique of Obama as support of all things Republican. I am in fact a registered Republican (the rules of my home state require a registered choice to vote in primary elections), but I have no use for the neo-cons W Bush had by his side and the policies they pushed. Just as I have no use for the extremes of the Democratic party, who I feel Obama has surrounded himself with so far in his term.
There a few issues that I strongly support and in my experience I can more often trust those issues in the hands of a right-leaning politician than a left-leaning one. Not always, but more often than not. I'd consider voting for anyone who had a proven track record of dealing with my issues in the manner I prefer. My vote has little to do with the (D) or (R) after a name on the ballot.
Complain about this comment
84. AndyPost wrote:
Mark: "Many of both parties are reserving judgment. But of course voters can't do that, they have to make a choice."
Oh, no they don't. They can abstain simply by not bothering to vote... which they seem to have done in large numbers.
----------------
Andy, the problem is this gives us no way of distinguishing the lazy or uninterested from the dissatisfied who feel unrepresented by any candidate.
I am a big fan of the idea of compulsorary voting ... with the addition of a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box. If none of the above wins then you have a problem.
If you wish to live with all the benefits of a democratic society, then there is also a level of obligation as well. This system makes it your civic duty to vote, without forcing you to chose one of the candidates and would give a genuine portrait of the political landscape.
Complain about this comment
88. At 7:15pm on 04 Nov 2009, RomeStu wrote:
Or even better have the candidates publish their "personal manifesto" when they put themselves forward. Then we would know what they would plan to do, not what some media analyst tells us they may do.
Their body of work is their personal manifesto. I certainly wouldn't read a manifesto published right before an election to get my vote. How would I know that everything in it jived with what they'd written, said and done before - unless I listened to what some media analyst told me?
As for what they will do, as opposed to what they are likely to do, you always have to take into account that the times are always a' changin'. Lincoln wanted to build a national railroad and make other infrastructure improvements in America. He did some of that, but he also got stuck fighting a civil war and presiding over the largest national debt we'd ever had and instituting an unpopular draft. He wanted to avoid the war. Heck, he even kept the postal service running to states that had seceded! But the war wouldn't be avoided. So, he did what all Presidents do in times of crisis: He did his best and very nearly lost a second term.
What you want to do. What you say you will do. And what you can do, for Presidents, doesn't always work out the way they expected. That's just the nature of the job.
Complain about this comment
#82 Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
Please explain how Republicans can prevent any legislation from moving forward in congress? Their votes are not required and they have no power to stop anything. The only ones holding up legislation are Democrats.
Blue Dog Democrats, i.e. Conservative Democrats are holding things up in the Senate.
And as for health care. It's now only one Independent: Joe Lieberman. Old Joe hails from Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world. Why do you imagine he's holding things up?
-----------------------------------------------
Blue Dog's are Democrats, not Republicans. Old Joe aligns with Democrats, not Republicans. Like I said, it's the Democrats holding up legislation.
Complain about this comment
Maybe this link to the Public Option Whip Count will work.
Complain about this comment
"I am a big fan of the idea of compulsorary voting ... "
Only totalitarian countries have compulsory voting. Americans aren't into coercion.
Complain about this comment
64 andrea
Romestu wrote "No one is denied coverage under NHS type systems - but obviously budgets mean that not all treatment could be available to everyone when they want it. That's just a fact of life."
You are being naive if you believe that coverage will not be denied.
-------
Andrea, first of all thank you for your response, but be assured health coverage will not be denied under an NHS type socialised medecin scheme.
Of course it will not be "treatment on demand" and certain procedures may not be available to everyone, but resources are not unlimited.
The bottom line (for me) is that nobody gets left out of general health care - you may not get those varicose veins done next week, but you can still see you GP if you feel poorly.
And that is the crux - with a socialised scheme where everyone has easy access to a family doctor then we see preventative medicine where cases are treated before they get chronic. It's more cost effective in the long run to treat people quickly and cheaply than to wait until they are chronic.
That is why Europe spends less than 70% per capita what the US spends (public and private) and Europe covers ALL its citizens.
*********
"There is no comparison economically or morally .... so despite the fact that it is never going to be a perfect system you must chose whether you want the best system for YOU or the best system for the good of the PEOPLE."
Last I checked, I am the PEOPLE.
Yes, but what about the "other" people who are not as lucky as you. If you can't follow the economic rationale, then where's your moral compass.
Finally, I am no fan of the package Obama put forward. He should have gone the whole hog and ripped up the system and start again.
He has only managed to displease everyone, and it seems that the money-makers in the industry will stay the same.
A chance for change has been missed
Complain about this comment
Always remember that when you cannot support any of the political party candidates on the ballot there is still the opportunity to "write in" a candidate and vote for that candidate. One can even vote for oneself.
I never vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. I will write in a candidate of my choice and vote for that candidate. If enough voters would do as such it would send a message to the political parties that they need to find more qualified candidates.
Complain about this comment
101. GH1618 wrote:
Romestu wrote "I am a big fan of the idea of compulsorary voting ... "
Only totalitarian countries have compulsory voting. Americans aren't into coercion.
--------
GH - I guess someone better tell those shrimp eating surf dudes down under that they live in a totalitarian regime!
Yes voting is compulsory in Australia - and they do fine you if you don't. Little fines for local and state and big fines for national.
This is from the Australian Government website
http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm#Is%20voting%20compulsory
"Is voting compulsory?
Yes, voting is compulsory for every Australian citizen aged 18 years or older. If you do not vote and do not have a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote, a penalty is imposed."
At least they really know who the people want ... and the politicians have to cater to all the segments of society, because they all vote.
95% is an average turnout - the other 5% are working in pubs in London.
Complain about this comment
what alot of countries ahve compulsary voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
Complain about this comment
#86 GH1618 wrote:
rodidog (#75) "Please explain how Republicans can prevent any legislation from moving forward in congress?"
I assume you are not American. The U. S. Senate rules allow unlimited debate, unless 60 members vote for "cloture," which sets a limit to the debate on a particular bill. There currently are 59 Democrats in the Senate and one Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. If all of these support cloture, a Republican effort to talk a bill to death (filibuster) would fail, however the Democrats cannot rely an 100% of the votes in their caucus. That is why Senate Democratic leaders have been courting the support of (Republican) Senator Snowe of Maine. If there is a filibuster of the health care bill, she is the one most likely to vote for cloture.
--------------------------
Oh, I'm well aware of that pesky problem the Dem's have, so are the Republicans. As you noted, if Democrats stick together Republicans can do nothing to stop this legislation. That was the point after all. Saying we couldn't count on our own members and it's the Republicans fault, well, that doesn't sound very convincing for an election Ad.
Complain about this comment
97. RomeStu:
'I am a big fan of the idea of compulsorary voting ... with the addition of a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box. If none of the above wins then you have a problem.'
I've often wished that there were an option to take away a vote from the candidate you like the least. But then there would be the problem of negative numbers...
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#194), yes, I noticed that Australia is among those with coercive voting laws. Not the most civilized chaps, I think.
To look at the question from a practical viewpoint instead of a moral one: if you think your vote matters, then you should want others not to vote, because then your vote will matter even more; if you think your vote doesn't matter, then you shouldn't care whether anyone votes or not.
Complain about this comment
90. At 7:19pm on 04 Nov 2009, CamberwellBeauty wrote:
Now, GLP - you know I've always enjoyed your posts, and I know(?) the above was tongue in cheek (please, let it be!!!).
Absolutely tongue in cheek, that's why I winked. But I have a philosophy: When someone (not you) calls me a name, I embrace it and double down on the awfulness of it to take it to an extreme. For example: Instead of being called pro-Choice, I've been called pro-Abortion so my response is to say, "Yup! I just love killing babies. I want the government to make everyone pregnant and be forced to have an abortion, even men." Of course, I don't like abortion. No sane person does. But I believe in Choice, because I refuse to force my morals on others. So I was just being my wicked self. Although I'd probably better give my worshipers a break. They've been on their knees bowing before my superior intellect since the acolytes brought me coffee this morning. ;)
93. At 7:25pm on 04 Nov 2009, GH1618 wrote:
Wrong. The "Blue Dog" Democrats are a group of members of the House of Representatives.
Oh, forgive me! But all Conservative Democrats in Congress are commonly considered to be, and referred to in the vernacular now as "Blue Dogs" if that's where their allegiance truly lies, whether or not they are members of the House caucus. It's a slur, and I used it as such.
And of course "holding things up" doesn't include the current 30 hours of non-debate that followed a GOP filibuster in the Senate to hold up the extension of unemployment benefits that, as they debate nothing, 200,000 people have lost.
Complain about this comment
99. At 7:39pm on 04 Nov 2009, rodidog wrote:
Like I said, it's the Democrats holding up legislation.
And I was agreeing with you. But also pointing out that the Democrats in question are not typical Democrats. They tend to side with conservative Republicans, especially on fiscal policy. That's why we use descriptors in sentences. You know, like moderate, conservative and liberal. So we don't lump all people of one type together into one amorphous group and assume they all think and act the same.
Complain about this comment
#109
All right Gav, I've got your measure now, mate!
And, I agree with your response/philosophy i.e re: abortion and your approach.
By the way, my reference to "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" I think that was a little dated for your age, but I hope you got my meaning?
I forgot to give you a reference for my growing up, I liken it to "Oliver Twist" actually!!
And, in all honesty, I really can't compete with some of you learned politicos I'm afraid (not being sarcastic) - I HATE politics, but enjoy debating it, preferably in a pub, as my mouth is much more articulate than my writing, although each have gotten me in to trouble many times!
So, everyone think what you want to think and you have my blessing!
Complain about this comment
#91 MagicKirin,
You seem to assume that the Repub don't want a healthcare bill. they do but question the public option and the absence of tort reform.
Depending on which poll a majority of American do not liek the Pelosi or Reid bills.
----------------------------
I assumed Republicans don't want the 2,000 page document currently being bandied about by Democrats. I also assume their version will never see the light of day in this congress either, so why talk about it? I do believe Democrats miscalculated and instead of achieving Bipartisan reform of some kind, might now achieve nothing. Very short sighted in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
rodidog (#106) "Saying we couldn't count on our own members and it's the Republicans fault ... "
I didn't (and wouldn't) say that, because I'm not a Democrat, I'm an independent.
Speaking of Independents, I have just read that Lieberman seems to have made a commitment to the Majority Leader to support cloture, if it comes to that. So that means a Democratic vote against cloture would be required in order to sustain a filibuster. There are (at least) a couple of Senate Democrats against the public option, however. (Follow the link in #100.)
Complain about this comment
To post#67: AMEN BROTHER
I was not judging Jenny,nor calling her trailer trash. I too live in a trailer. I just thought it was a stupid thing to say. Congress makes the rules and the president signs them into law. And if jenny can spot an elitist from a mile away, its no wonder she didnt vote for "cant count how many houses he owns Mcain". And even though i voted for President Obama,I still questioned his choice to have a Pritzker tied to his campaign. In the end though, he did not give her a post in his cabinet and that brought him up a notch in my book.
Complain about this comment
#110 Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
And I was agreeing with you. But also pointing out that the Democrats in question are not typical Democrats. They tend to side with conservative Republicans, especially on fiscal policy. That's why we use descriptors in sentences. You know, like moderate, conservative and liberal. So we don't lump all people of one type together into one amorphous group and assume they all think and act the same.
Perhaps you should share this lesson with your pals, maybe next time they will be more inclusive and bipartisan. You know. there have always been conservative and moderate Democrats, I'm sure they will be surprised to hear they're are not "true" democrats. That big party tent looks to be getting smaller.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon:
"Red and Blue mixed makes a pack of snarling yellow dogs."
What colorful insight into American politics.
To whom can I attribute to this quotion to? the phrase 'KScurmudgeon's grandfather' does not seem to fit well.
Yesterday's Elections in Virginia, while not exactly a referendum on Obama, are indicaitive of how the state will vote in a year.
People aren't so much angry with Obama as they are with congressional democrats, who didn't seem to get the message: 800 billion bailout to the companies that prey upon the working man is a step in the wrong direction. Working class people in Virginia still struggle under some of the highest taxes in the nation, and have been threatened with even higher taxes, of course they are going to turn away from the 'tax-and-spend' party.
You dems can rest assured: even if the House and Senate go back to the GOP, Obama would have to do something very stupid to lose re-election in '12.
Complain about this comment
rodidog (#112) "I do believe Democrats miscalculated and instead of achieving Bipartisan reform of some kind, might now achieve nothing."
I don't know as they have miscalculated. It takes two parties to achieve bipartisanship. Senator Baucus did attempt to write a bill which would attract some Republican support, but he got only Sen. Snowe on board. If the Republicans are not inclined to compromise, there is nothing the Democrats can do about it. They are certainly not going to write a Republican bill in order to get Republican votes.
The important calculation is the one counting votes against a potential filibuster. Some pollsters are already saying the Democrats will lost two to four seats in the Senate next year, so they need to pass a bill in 2010.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the woman in the story who thinks President Obama should solve her personal problems e.g. getter her a job. Nobody is more to blame for such a mentality than Candidate Obama. As for the elections, the real election-shocker is New Jersey. The President did go all out in his support of Corzine.
Complain about this comment
A lot of people are missing the point. Yes, you cannot change the system in 12 months. True. Unarguable. And totally misleading.
You have a President elected with a 70% approval rating, backed by a huge majority in the House and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The opposition has been demoralised and in chaos. Has any President ever had it so good to press through his agenda fast?
A newly elected President will start with a lot of momentum - the famous "first 100 days". By the end of the first year he should normally have most of his main agenda through because by the end of the second year the election is looming and the only aim is consolidation. It doesn't matter how good your agenda is if you can't get yourself re-elected. So, in practice, if by this stage you cannot point to real change you have to be a real optimist to think that it is going to come before 2012.
Does anyone seriously think that after the mid-term elections, with a Senate that may be significantly less blue, a House with a smaller Democratic majority and an approval rating hovering around 50% at best and November 2012 looming, President Obama will really get a lot more done? In reality he has about 12 more months to deliver. After that, the excuse that the Republicans are blocking him won't wash because he will have had two years when they can't even slow him in Congress which he will have wasted.
Complain about this comment
" ... As for the elections, the real election-shocker is New Jersey. The President did go all out in his support of Corzine." (from Dan at #118)
Only a shock to those who don't know anything about American politics. CBS political reporter Bob Schieffer, the oldest hand in the business, recently said on CBS radio that he thinks a president's endorsement never means anything in a local election. Presidents, and other prominent politicians, make campaign appearances for others of their party out of party solidarity, not because it actually matters.
Complain about this comment
111. At 8:23pm on 04 Nov 2009, CamberwellBeauty wrote:
By the way, my reference to "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" I think that was a little dated for your age, but I hope you got my meaning?
I got it. It's one of those books New York children were required to read when I was growing up. And the movie was a perennial favorite of local television stations.
I forgot to give you a reference for my growing up, I liken it to "Oliver Twist" actually!!
Now I'm thinking of you dancing down the street with Jack Wild and Mark Lester singing, "Consider yourself at home! Consider yourself one of the family!" While the ever handsome, much missed, Oliver Reed broods in the background and Ron Moody counts his treasure. :D
Just kidding. I get where you are coming from. And while conditions where I was growing up weren't as bad, it was only because my parents managed to get themselves into one of the government housing schemes very early on. Just a few streets away from where I lived were the cold water tenements, where the conditions were similar to the ones you described. I still remember news reports of babies in their cribs being attacked by rats. If local New York politics hadn't made me a Liberal Democrat, my life would have.
And, in all honesty, I really can't compete with some of you learned politicos I'm afraid (not being sarcastic) - I HATE politics, but enjoy debating it, preferably in a pub, as my mouth is much more articulate than my writing, although each have gotten me in to trouble many times!
Oh, I wasn't political for a very long time. I was one of those people who was too busy to read up until the last minute, listened to a few speeches and voted for the guy I thought looked and sounded most presidential. Until the attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton started back in the 90s and I wanted to know what the truth was before I voted for him a second time. I was shocked by the amount of misinformation and lies being spun. Not that either of them was or is perfect. I have no illusions about politics. But I loath hypocrisy. So you could say, the vast right wing conspiracy and the mega-church moral majority made me political.
And one of the reasons that I wasn't political was because, generally speaking, it's considered rude in America to discuss politics or religion at social gatherings - unless you're in college or amongst very close friends and family. Unfortunately, we don't have the tradition of pub-arguments or choreographed pub-talk, where everyone knows the rules and delights in the battle of wits. Which is probably why one finds so many Americans discussing politics on the Internet. It's really the only acceptable place to engage in a political argument.
In any case, it really isn't important if you can't spout facts, figures and statistics like a policy wonk. You have a passionate belief in something greater than yourself and you express it. That's all anyone can ask.
So, everyone think what you want to think and you have my blessing!
Thank you! Now if only I had the approval of my fuzzband. The cat is staring at me and insisting I step away from the computer, Now! Rubbies are far more important than boring old politics to my fuzzball love.
Complain about this comment
David Murrell #25: '"I’ll throw in a random ‘socialist’ thought, if I pay money to someone I expect some good or service back, unless I am being charitable. Now since I pay taxes to the government I expect to receive services that make my life easier. It seems to me getting a doctor when I want one, getting unemployment benefits if need them is a fair return on the thousands I pay the government."
Pay no mind to those within the Republican party who accuse president Obama of being a "Socialist." They're just fear mongering because they know of no other way to get votes. The prospect of actually offering constructive proposals to benefit all Americans for the betterment of the actual country, as aposed to themselves is an entirely alian concept to them.
As regards the average American complaining about "Socialism, or the fear of it setting in, chances are that most of them don't even know what "Socialism" is. "Socialism" means that all people are treated equally; yes that's true. But that is only when it comes to equal treatment under the law and when receiving (what should be) basic benefits such as health care. The people who are flippant about potencial "Socialism" creeping into this country are confusing the definition of "Socialism" with "communism." "Communism" is where the state owns everything. Where there is no such thing as a "private market." Where everyone therefore works for the government in some form, and gets payd the same amount. "Socialism" is nothing like that.
We do have welfare benefits, unemployment benefits etc. But they undoubtedly pale in comparison to the generosity with which your government in Britain treats its citizens. In fact, I asked yesterday on the previous thread if anyone in Britain could share with me how much the British government gives out in unemployment benefits on a monthly basis, for how long before insisting people find a job, whether it pays for the unemployed's housing or forces them into homeless shelters etc, and I never got an answer. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Complain about this comment
Well #112 Gav
Delightful post, really.
Won't keep on, but from those lovely conditions I described (by the way, the house next door was bombed out, it looked like an open faced dolls house! and my lovely Dad, commandered the back garden - big as a postage stamp - and built chicken hutches on it! Those chickens were evil, and going to the outside loo was an adventure, they would go on the attack - you could be in the loo for ages, ok if it was light, you could read the newspaper squares, the dark was another thing - no wonder I was an early reader!
We were re-housed to a "council estate" worse thing that could have happened to our society culturally, neighbourly, etc. Although we were fascinated with turning on the lights, flushing indoor toilets and not having to fight off vermin - we lost something - open front doors, neighbours chatting, Mum always "whiting" the windowsill, "redding" the threashold, kids playing outside, routine....in looking back, you sort of realise how quickly you become trapped with the "bells & whistles" i.e electric, flushing toilets then - today PC's, cell phones, big cars! Sadly, many of these estates are nothing short of slums now and many demolished - I think there was quite an open admittance that these estates were not a great success, not in the "big picture". With that said, the intentions were good.
By the way, I have great conversations/debates political/religious, in mixed company, family, clubs, and the work place - and surprise - I actually live in rural Virginia, Shenandoah Valley - I have two beautiful homelands - sometimes I speak (write) as a Brit. sometimes as an American - it's sort of a split personality thing! I have great love for both places, and accept them both, warts an' all.
Complain about this comment
dceilar #32: '"I have the feeling that I have more influence on British national politics as a British Subject then I ever would have in the US as an American so called Citizen!"
Well you'll never know until you try, will you?
But you're probably right. I highly doubt that British MPs spend 90% of their time bending over for lobbyiests instead of erving heir constituants!! All we Americans can do, short of move back to mother England, is look on from afar with envy at your quick and relatively inexpensive electoral campaigns, spirited Prime Minister's Questions debates every week, and selfless and generous government. Oh well. We can dream can't we?
Our constitution, just so you know, is designed on purpose so that it takes a while for anything to get done in Washington. There is supposed to be a natural tug of war between the Congress and the White House. But with the Republicans as obstructive as they are, and the Democrats too cowardly to stand up to them, no wonder we're not getting anything done!!!
Enjoy your fabulous country's political set-up!!
Complain about this comment
PursuitOfLove wrote:
dceilar #32: '"I have the feeling that I have more influence on British national politics as a British Subject then I ever would have in the US as an American so called Citizen!"
Well you'll never know until you try, will you?
___________________--
Force to agree if you live in a rabid blue or red state times are few and far between. It does not stop me from voting though. I proudly voted against Kennedy and Obama even though I knew they would win Mass.
Complain about this comment
# 8 BienvenueEnLouisiana - "Why not respect her vote rather than question her motives or her intelligence."
#16 Gederts Skerstens "It's a curiousity that the Liberal Left, the yapping 'Elites', the Peoples' Pals, generally despise the people. This knowledge could decide the next election."
#44 MattofNJ "As sure as the sun comes up in the morning, when liberals suffer a defeat (and the governors elections' may not be that important), they always respond by denigrating the intelligence of those who do not agree with them."
[I've a feeling a few others peddled the same line.]
I must say, I am intrigued, not to say amused, by this belief that the Left do not respect the electorate, and the Right do.
Let's look at the most recent big win for the Dems - the Presidential election in 2008.
Obama, a young, inexperienced and till 04 unknown politician, won a great victory. From memory I think it was the highest Dem % vote for 44 years in a Presidential election.
How did the Reps respond. Was it perhaps 'You won, we lost. It was a fair fight. Perhaps not surprising after the last 8 years. You debated our guy - and won. The people, in their wisdom, have spoken - and rejected us. We disagree with your policies - but we don't doubt you want the best for the country. We'll work with you when we can.'?
Yeah. Right.
So - how did Obama win? Apparently, according to the Reps, because, with the help of that ol' Commie MSM, he fooled and bamboozled the simple-minded voters, who became 'Obamabots', thought he was the 'Messiah', and 'drank the Kool-Aid'. He did this with his rhetoric - just like Hitler. Essentially the people were hypnotised. The possibility that they made a rational choice just didn't seem to occur.
The Reps are v good at respecting the will of the people - when the people are voting Republican.......
Complain about this comment
ref #126
How did the Reps respond. Was it perhaps 'You won, we lost. It was a fair fight. Perhaps not surprising after the last 8 years. You debated our guy - and won. The people, in their wisdom, have spoken - and rejected us. We disagree with your policies - but we don't doubt you want the best for the country. We'll work with you when we can.'?
Yeah. Right.
So - how did Obama win? Apparently, according to the Reps, because, with the help of that ol' Commie MSM, he fooled and bamboozled the simple-minded voters, who became 'Obamabots', thought he was the 'Messiah', and 'drank the Kool-Aid'. He did this with his rhetoric - just like Hitler. Essentially the people were hypnotised. The possibility that they made a rational choice just didn't seem to occur.
The Reps are v good at respecting the will of the people - when the people are voting Republican.......
________________
As I recall McCain was vey gracious. I seem to remember certain Democrats refusing to accept 2004 and 2004 as legimtimate. Barbara Boxer being one.
But you seem to want the republicans to have no say or input or even to dare open their mouths. the MSM was in the tank for Obama and everyone with a shread of honesty knows it.
Complain about this comment
#126, John from Dublin, you have hit the nail right on the head about why people are starting to get disillusioned with the Obama presidency: a huge popular vote, opposition in chaos, immense popularity, Congress sown-up. No President has had it so good since Jimmy Carter in 1976. And yet, supposedly a bunch of no-hopers who can't even pick a winning candidate for a seat that they have held fot over 100 years is stopping him doing anything. Talking the talk was easy, but walking the walk seems to need a Zimmer frame.
How the hell has any President since Jimmy Carter ever got anything done when they have more often than not faced a hostile Congress? Yet some have and have made a bigger impact faster. Expectations have been built up. The country gave him a huge mandate but, instead of a whirlwind, are seeing at most a gentle breeze.
Complain about this comment
ref #128
How the hell has any President since Jimmy Carter ever got anything done when they have more often than not faced a hostile Congress? Yet some have and have made a bigger impact faster. Expectations have been built up. The country gave him a huge mandate but, instead of a whirlwind, are seeing at most a gentle breeze.
____________________________
Like Obama Carter was unqualified for the psoition. weather you agree with their decisions Reagan,clinton and both Bushs knew how to get things done and work with people.
3 years 2 months untill we get a chance of a comptent President.
Complain about this comment
re. 85. publiusdetroit:
It amazes me that most people don't bother to research candidates and look into the long term pros and cons of policies. And that so few bother to vote even, as you say, in local elections where the outcome affects them the most. But so many will then complain. And so many will content themselves with sound bite statements from demagogues. A democracy requires informed voters or it doesn't work. You can't put the country on cruise control and not expect to have problems. I may disagree with some of the people on this blog, but they are at least engaged in the political lives of their countries and are at least moderately informed about current events.
"Great to see you back"
Well, I won't be back very often. I decided I can blog or have a life, but not both. I just check in every now and then. To be honest, much of what appears here seems to be the same posters with the same arguments. But thanks for the thought.
Complain about this comment
#117 GH1618,
rodidog (#112) "I do believe Democrats miscalculated and instead of achieving Bipartisan reform of some kind, might now achieve nothing."
I don't know as they have miscalculated. It takes two parties to achieve bipartisanship. Senator Baucus did attempt to write a bill which would attract some Republican support, but he got only Sen. Snowe on board. If the Republicans are not inclined to compromise, there is nothing the Democrats can do about it. They are certainly not going to write a Republican bill in order to get Republican votes.
The important calculation is the one counting votes against a potential filibuster. Some pollsters are already saying the Democrats will lost two to four seats in the Senate next year, so they need to pass a bill in 2010.
------------------------
Well, I'm sure folks feel more inclined to support something when they have a certain amount of ownership, writing something that might attract Republicans does not sound like compromise or bipartisanship. It's merely playing lip service to the idea. Republicans are not going to support a Democrat Bill they had no part in writing. Democrats did not believe they needed Republicans or were confident they could peel enough off to pass their bill. Perhaps they can. The problem they now have, because of last nights election, is that they might need more than one or two Republicans. That's the miscalculation I'm referring to.
Complain about this comment
102. RomeStu: Our health care system cannot just be scrapped and started anew. It's too large a project with no one really capable of pulling it off.
Our health care system is a complex web of relationships, almost all of which involve a profit motive -- for example, between doctor and patient, between provider and insurance company, between pharmaceutical company and patient, etc. And each participant has multiple relationships -- for example, a provider has a relationship with the patient, with the insurance company and with the pharmaceutical company.
Each is seeking to maximize his revenue. This is why I believe it is simplistic to claim eliminating the insurance company will greatly diminish the cost.
I also believe most people don't understand how each of those participants operates. For example, pharmaceutical companies work to get their drugs on hospital formularies and to maximize the money they receive from insurance companies. They'll give coupons to patients, who will then use those coupons to purchase newer drugs, many of which have higher reimbursements than older drugs for which the insurance companies don't reimburse as much.
The system is gamed at every step. The insurance company is just one piece of it. If "overuse" is, indeed, our problem, insurance companies are, in fact, the only ones trying to deal with this problem.
Despite this, I think the profit motive brings something valuable to the system, including top doctors, new drugs, etc.
As for your implying that I don't care about others, that's just nonsense. For me to believe that a large federal agency will not be in my best interest is not selfish. It's reasoned and based on years of observing our government.
I have no problem with covering everyone, even illegal aliens (up to a point). I'd just rather see states innovate and try different options. Expanding Medicaid would work, if the program were evaluated more critically to reduce fraud and whatever other factors contribute to waste.
I still believe there are solutions out there that will never come to light because the Democrats haven't the imagination or ability to see beyond big government. Nothing could be more distasteful to me than their version of a government option.
Complain about this comment
Great job, Yankees!
Complain about this comment
ref 123 CamberwellBeauty
I'm not sure I can agree completely with you on the matter of public housing. The mistake might not have been the buildings themselves, but how they were populated. I recently read an article in the Chicago Reader regarding the subject of the failed housing in Chicago. The author concluded that the problem was the ratio of children to adults. Too many kids, not enough adult supervision, and few, if any, social services provided. The children ran wild, formed gangs, got into trouble and essentially took over, making the housing unlivable. Sort of an urban Lord of the Flies.
Interestingly, after a couple of bad decades, New York City isn't tearing down any public housing. They're rehabbing and rebuilding the communities and crime is going down. I hope they succeed, because my experience with public housing was very different than yours. I remember summer evenings playing with the other children while all the grown ups sat on the benches around the little park we had chatting with each other. Everyone knew everyone else and their kids, so if your parents didn't catch you misbehaving, somebody els's would. It changed when the city started using it as a dumping ground for unemployed welfare recipients and not doing background checks. They were originally designed to house the working poor until they moved up into the middle class, which is what happened in most cases. People had stable, healthy homes, saved their money and bought a house, or a co-op apartment and left to enjoy the American dream.
By the way, I have great conversations/debates political/religious, in mixed company, family, clubs, and the work place - and surprise - I actually live in rural Virginia, Shenandoah Valley - I have two beautiful homelands - sometimes I speak (write) as a Brit. sometimes as an American - it's sort of a split personality thing! I have great love for both places, and accept them both, warts an' all.
I'm impressed. Must be that laid back southern attitude. Things tend to get a little heated, or frosty depending on the personalities, if you try that with people you don't know very well in most places I've lived. But then it could be the charming accent you've probably still got that lets you get away with certain things. Americans do love a British accent. I'd hazard a guess that Michael Caine is America's favorite Cockney -- and I'd let him get away with pretty much anything if he talked real purty to me!
And yes, I do envy you living in the Shenandoah. Probably one of the most beautiful places in America. Oh great! Now I've got a new lyric stuck in my head. John Cullum singing, "This land here is Anderson land! By the strength of my hand and the sweat of my brow..." Okay, time to get out "Best Ever Rock Anthems" or I'll be humming show tunes for the rest of the week!
Complain about this comment
115. At 8:34pm on 04 Nov 2009, rodidog wrote:
You know. there have always been conservative and moderate Democrats, I'm sure they will be surprised to hear they're are not "true" democrats. That big party tent looks to be getting smaller.
I said they weren't "typical" not "true". Don't put words in my mouth. And on 90% of Democratic issues the Blue Dogs vote with us. If anything, the tent is getting more and more crowded. Consider NY's 23rd, where a Democrat just trounced the bright star of the Republican base in a Conservative rural district. You know, where those "real" Americans live. Guess Palin got "nailed" again.
Complain about this comment
Consider NY's 23rd, where a Democrat just trounced the bright star of the Republican base in a Conservative rural district. You know, where those "real" Americans live.
#135, which election was this? I thought that actually a Democratic who was supported by the former Republican candidate just held off by a small margin the challenge of a candidate from a fringe party.
Complain about this comment
#134 Gav
Just a quick comment, then I'll let it all rest!
I wasn't too clear re: the housing estates (as they were called)- when we first moved there, we were fortunate to have what would be considered a townhouse, coz there was a tribe of us - 4 bedrooms, etc. beautiful house in just a row of 8, plus 2 other rows identical, we were in the middle row. We had a fantastic growing up there, loads of kids, all playing outside hours upon hours, looking out for each other walk to the shops, knew everyone, lovely little rose garden in front of each house, each back garden beautifully tended, etc. In most cases, dad went out to work, mum stayed home, we knew how to behave - most times! The problems came later when the general "family" changed, kids left unattended, as were the homes, the houses declined, remained in a state of disrepair, services by the council became sparse, etc., and dare I say it - many immigrants began to arrive and were housed, many obviously not used to the "environment" or how to maintain it (that's a complicated/sensitive issue, and I won't go there!)....incidently, by brother still lives in that house, as the government offered purchase of a lot of these properties, my dad purchased, then many were purchased by "slum lords"......and so it goes.
I can get away with murder with the accent, I must admit, but I must say, I have found most Americans are very curious, they ask lots of questions about GB, politics there, and myriad of other things - I just haven't experienced the "well, this is how we do it in America" attitude, there is a sincere interested in how things are different "over there" - I have a world map on my wall in the office, I use it as a tool when the questions pop up and there is sincere interest. Don't get me wrong, I know some of the "others" too, on both sides of the Pond!
The Shenandoah is indeed a beautiful place....I have seen about 26 States though in our traveling, and several parts of Canada including Nova Scotia, and goodness, some of it has been breathtaking to say the least, and the varied peoples, soooo interesting. Upstate NY is pretty nice, too!
And, I beg your pardon, but I am America's favourite Cockney, thank you!
PS - note my spellings, I'm back and forth between American/Eng. See, I'm even bilingual!
Cheers, Gav
Complain about this comment
Ref. 97, Stu:
"If you wish to live with all the benefits of a democratic society, then there is also a level of obligation as well. This system makes it your civic duty to vote, without forcing you to chose one of the candidates and would give a genuine portrait of the political landscape."
I've had this debate several times over the years with my Australian cousins (voting is compulsory in Australia), and they've convinced me that it is a valid approach, but from a purely pragmatic point of view, I don't think it can work in this country. When you look at the expense and (frankly) lack of success the government has in enforcing the laws around our census (participation in which is compulsory), and realize that that occurs only once every decade, it just doesn't seem realistic.
If as you suggest there was a "none of the above" box on our ballots and voting was compulsory, I suspect that it might cause some new problems. For instance, what happens if "none of the above" wins? Do we hold another election with new candidates? The parties aren't set up to produce new candidates in short order. If we simply ignore "none of the above" votes, what have we accomplished, really?
The system we have now works so that the tendency is regression to the middle. Think about it. Those people whose party lost the last election are more likely to vote in the next one than those of the party in power, because the previous election loss typically does nothing to change their opinion of who should be in power. They are automatically energized. The people who supported the winning candidate, however, don't feel the need to do anything in particular and must be energized by the results of their party's policies to go to the polls in the next election. If the party in power is showing only middling success, a lot of their supporters are going to find something else to do on election day.
I argue that this means the opposition is going to win more elections after a loss unless the party in power really does something special with its time in power. This works to discourage complacency in the party in power. That's good. It also is the driving force behind the swinging pendulum of American politics.
Finally, while I encourage people to vote, I'm not terribly upset when other Americans decide not to vote. One man, one vote is the rule, and I'd never try to prevent another citizen from casting his vote. However, if they're not going to vote, I can't help but think that it increases my influence and the influence of others that care (though not necessarily agree with me). That's a good thing, I think.
Complain about this comment
23
U numbered.
why did they U number you.
you make sense.
Complain about this comment
"America's favourite Cockney, thank you!"
I see you have reached american heights of self delusion;)
yes we Brits can all use that accent.yes they do love it. and yes many don't hear a word because they like the accent.
Big deal. tell them you believe in health care for all and a system that helps all and see how long they love your accent.
Tim ohio good to see you back.
and away.
Yep same old crap.
Complain about this comment
104
"
GH - I guess someone better tell those shrimp eating surf dudes down under that they live in a totalitarian regime!"
they will think you mean they can eat it all
Complain about this comment
AndyPost (#138) "For instance, what happens if "none of the above" wins? Do we hold another election with new candidates?"
This is not a problem. Nevada has an option for "None of these candidates." These votes amount to an opinion poll only; only the votes for named candidates are counted for determining the outcome of the election.
Complain about this comment
" And what does he do? Declare the mildest flu in 60 years to be a national emergency."
Not just him .
Most of the worlds medical community.
76 Tim you may also note the number of people that claim to be employed by the GOV who then complain about "socialism"
when their job is a socialist job, (by their def)
53
"53. At 3:05pm on 04 Nov 2009, kjay27 wrote:
As I read these comments, I get a great sense of arrogance from Obama supporters as to Jenny's vote (and even her right to vote because she "doesn't measure up"), with very little empathy towards her situation. This is the same arrogance that is so prevalent at the national level, and is the reason I predict that the Democrats will lose a large number of seats in the legislature next year."
well a little empathy from her to all those suffering in the same position and a little effort to kick her indoctrination wouldn't go amiss.
As a Christian she should get the concept of "to as to others as they would do unto you"
but I doubt it.
Here is a slightly off topic discussion I heard on a radio station yesterday.
a religious station.
drawling girl (dg)comes on and asks the presenter (P) a question.
dg " I made promise to god not to read a book, but then I found a book that was more bad than the first so I didn't read that one can I read the first one? or will I be breaking my promise/"
(now this may seem like a joke and would be if it were me on the line. (but the fun bit was the reaction.)
P" you made a promise to God but we all sin, we all have thousands of sins, but if you have found the lord you do not have to worry about them sind If yuou have found the lord the indevidual sins will not matter.
you have bben saved. but if yo have not found the lord you will suffer"
dg " so can I read the first book ? the second book was badder than the first or will I be sinning"
P you take the second book and destroy it,"
"
dg" can I read the first book then"
P " you have found the lord so you do not have to worry about any individual sin you commit. because you are saved."
dg" so I can read the first book"
Personally I was wondering how the two of them managed to breath .
Religious radio in america can be REAL funny.
Complain about this comment
#140
and.....I see you too are delusional in thinking "they" listen to you!
I don't have to tell "them" anything - "they" can come to this board, and you'll tell them everything they need to know, right?
Hey Gav - it's been nice....
Complain about this comment
First off, it is pretty rude to make nasty comments about someone who is living in a trailer park. Likely Jenny and her family do not have much money and are scrapping by. For all we know, their house could have been foreclosed or they could have had cancer or other health problems that have bankrupted them.
Where is the empathy and compassion? Some of this website do not have any, but I do have empathy for Jenny and her family. I don't think that she expected President Obama to really fix everything, but rather make life better for average Americans, job-wise. Was Jenny really that naive to expect this? In the back of my mind, I knew Obama couldn't fix everything, but I did think that during his campaign. I really thought that he would make big, drastic changes right away and lead us into a new era of renewable energy, which would bring about numerous manufacturing and environmental jobs.
You can call me just as naive as Jenny, because I was so disillusioned with Bush and the Repubs that there was no way I would vote for a Repub. No way at all. I thought Obama was the answer.
But I look around and the employment rate has not changed, there are no new manufacturing jobs and Obama has not put forth any new laws about helping American companies/putting tariffs on companies that ship jobs overseas.
In short, Obama is doing as good as he can, but America thought he would give us more. We are disappointed, but we are grateful and appreciate that he is not Bush. Things could be worse.
So I close with saying, I have been disillusioned by Obama, too, but he is our President. Just like we had to stick with Bush, we have to stick with Obama. There is no turning back.
The only way Obama could appease the American people is by giving us American manufacturing jobs back and by giving us health care that we can afford, without fines on those who don't have it. That is what I wish for more than anything else. There is still time for Obama to do these things. I don't know if he will. But I am glad he is not Bush.
Complain about this comment
no camberwell you can tell them.
then there will be no disagreement.
Complain about this comment
146#
Your assumptions/presumptions are pathetic......back to the tree with you!
Seriously, just because I don't throw out insults to a general population, doesn't mean that I don't has disagreements with individuals/laws/etc., there are many that would beg to differ with you.
But as expected, continued sarcasm is usually your response when you really don't have a sensible answer.
I've noticed too, on some occasions, that you tend to wait until the end of the postings, especially when the more informed, open minded & articulate are active (myself not included! which I'm sure you'll confirm) - I there's several that you don't want to tackle intellectually. But, that is an assumption on my part. Maybe you are out shopping or gathering acorns ;-)! and missed the first part of the debate.
Hey Gav - you out there?
Complain about this comment
Camberwell beauty.
I would say that there are many issues I don't go back to.
but there are few that are new.
But again apart from sucking up what have you suggested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile/?userid=2384314
You admit to being a complete political tool and you prove it.
PS I do work. so there are some debates I do not get involved in.
Because there is not enough time to engage with the HUGE number of american simpletons that post the same old crap here every day for two years so far, that I have followed.
I would add that again you are another poster that complains I am rude. I call you names. but you DO NOT DEBATE THE ISSUES.
you just debate the style they are delivered in.
Again you have done a very good job of becoming an american. But not the sort of american I would support.
Complain about this comment
#135 Gavrielle_LaPoste
I said they weren't "typical" not "true". Don't put words in my mouth.
I don't see much of a difference with either label. Both references suggest an abnormal make-up when compared to a "typical" Democrat. But your right, I did (subconsciously) switch the words...my bad.
-----------------------------------
And on 90% of Democratic issues the Blue Dogs vote with us.
Earlier you said "They tend to side with conservative Republicans, especially on fiscal policy". Which is it?
-----------------------------------
If anything, the tent is getting more and more crowded. Consider NY's 23rd, where a Democrat just trounced the bright star of the Republican base in a Conservative rural district. You know, where those "real" Americans live. Guess Palin got "nailed" again.
Owens will have to run again next year and might lose. Meanwhile, Republicans have control of VA and NJ for four years. Sounds like a good trade to me.
Complain about this comment
#145 Illinoisan,
But I look around and the employment rate has not changed, there are no new manufacturing jobs and Obama has not put forth any new laws about helping American companies/putting tariffs on companies that ship jobs overseas.
The employment rate has changed, it's gone down. Tomorrow we will see new figures on employment that might take us to 10% unemployed.
Complain about this comment
136. At 1:15pm on 05 Nov 2009, Cricketing_stargazer wrote:
"Consider NY's 23rd, where a Democrat just trounced the bright star of the Republican base in a Conservative rural district. You know, where those "real" Americans live.
#135, which election was this? I thought that actually a Democratic who was supported by the former Republican candidate just held off by a small margin the challenge of a candidate from a fringe party."
The good news being that the "fringe party" is the party of Palin, Limbaugh and other right-wing kooks? They were supporting the "Conservative Party" candidate against the "Republican Party" candidate who then supported the Democrat eventual victor.
Now if THAT scenario is replayed over the next couple of elections, the GOP will have moved from small tent to pup tent and be electable only in the Bible Belt. I regret the loss of a viable, mainstream GOP because intelligent dialog and responsible opposition is what is needed.
Complain about this comment
136. At 1:15pm on 05 Nov 2009, Cricketing_stargazer wrote:
#135, which election was this? I thought that actually a Democratic who was supported by the former Republican candidate just held off by a small margin the challenge of a candidate from a fringe party.
District 23 Election Results:
Bill Owens Dem. 66,526 49.0%
Doug Hoffman Con. 62,308 45.9
Dede Scozzafava Rep. 6,986 5.1
When you win by 3 percentage points and another 5 percent voted for a candidate no longer in the running, who threw her support to your campaign, you can be said to have trounced the well financed, right of center but hardly fringe, former Vice Presidential candidate's Anointed One.
Complain about this comment
CamberwellBeauty!
Yes, I am here. Been out a while. My 80 year old mother's having open heart surgery tomorrow. Thank god for Medicare and a union retirement health insurance plan!
What can I do for you?
Complain about this comment
149. At 00:00am on 06 Nov 2009, rodidog wrote:
I don't see much of a difference with either label. Both references suggest an abnormal make-up when compared to a "typical" Democrat. But your right, I did (subconsciously) switch the words...my bad.
"True" implies that there is some standardized litmus test for Democrats. There isn't. Typical means "exhibiting the qualities or characteristics that identify a group or kind or category". Blue Dogs are a minority within the party, but they are still Democrats, like moderate Republicans who favor abortion rights and a public health care option.
Earlier you said "They tend to side with conservative Republicans, especially on fiscal policy". Which is it?
Which is what? Please be a little more specific. Thanks.
Owens will have to run again next year and might lose.
So? He knew that going into the race. And it really is hard to get rid of an incumbent if he's doing a good job - and even when he's not. I doubt the carpetbaggers will be back next year, so whoever goes up against him will have to fight his new congressional record. Part of what made this race so interesting, is that none of the candidates had national experience. They were all equal except for their stands on the issues.
Meanwhile, Republicans have control of VA and NJ for four years. Sounds like a good trade to me.
None of the exit polls pointed to extreme dissatisfaction at the federal level to account for the vote going to Republicans. Most voters were responding to local issues only. Personally, I think it's a pyrrhic victory. Both these governors will be forced to take federal stimulus dollars which won't please the Conservative base, and/or raise taxes and cut services - which won't please anyone. In four years, if the economy of their states still sucks or they get caught giving juicy contracts to their friends, they'll get the boot too, same as the Democrats. The days when governors had any real power at the national level are long since over.
Complain about this comment
#154 Gav,
Please remember this whole thing started when I pointed out that it is Democrats who're holding up legislation, not Republicans. I base this on the simple reason that Republicans do not have the votes to stop anything. In response, you suggested conservative democrats are not "typical" democrats and often side with Republicans, especially on fiscal policy. This seemed to imply, at least to me, that you were suggesting conservative Democrats are something other than part of the Democratic party to which I inferred. You later stated Blue Dogs are Democrats who side with the party 90% of the time. Your two points are a little confusing, which begged the question, which is it? Meaning do they typically side with Republicans or other Democrats. I hope this is more specific for you. I was merely looking for clarification.
-----------------------------
So? He knew that going into the race. And it really is hard to get rid of an incumbent if he's doing a good job - and even when he's not. I doubt the carpetbaggers will be back next year, so whoever goes up against him will have to fight his new congressional record. Part of what made this race so interesting, is that none of the candidates had national experience. They were all equal except for their stands on the issues.
True, except the Democrat and Republican candidate pretty much supported the same policies and he will not have much time to create any record before he's back on the campaign trail. IMO, chances are he might not win in that district again since this was a split race. Remeber, the Republican still gained thousands of votes even though she quit and backed the democrat.
-------------------------------------
None of the exit polls pointed to extreme dissatisfaction at the federal level to account for the vote going to Republicans. Most voters were responding to local issues only.
I believe your wrong in that. The polls pointed to dissatisfaction with the economy in general, just not with Obama specifically. The problem Democrats have is that they are in power and have a huge majority. Who are voters going to take their frustrations out on?
-------------------------------------
Personally, I think it's a pyrrhic victory. Both these governors will be forced to take federal stimulus dollars which won't please the Conservative base, and/or raise taxes and cut services - which won't please anyone.
Why would they have to accept stimulus money since that money was already doled out before they were elected? You're right though, no one is going to accept higher taxes. I think you will see states moving away from unfunded Federal mandates while reducing select taxes and services, as well as state employees.
-------------------
In four years, if the economy of their states still sucks or they get caught giving juicy contracts to their friends, they'll get the boot too, same as the Democrats.
I completely agree and that goes for all office holders.
------------------
The days when governors had any real power at the national level are long since over.
It is not about the governors themselves, it's about the swing in the electorate from just one year ago.
Complain about this comment
155. At 07:51am on 06 Nov 2009, rodidog wrote:
I hope this is more specific for you. I was merely looking for clarification.
Sorry. I thought it was clear that a person can be of two minds about a variety of issues. You can be a deficit hawk and still favor "liberal" social programs if you embrace the "Pay As You Go" Clintonian doctrine. Many Republicans and Democrats, whether they define themselves as conservative, liberal or moderate subscribe to the PAYGO philosophy because it's deficit neutral. Conservative Democrats also tend to vote in favor of big business, same as Republicans, but can be convinced to support "the mythical little guy" if the legislative pot is sweetened with a bit of quid pro quo.
Frankly, I think the Conservative Dems are just in it for themselves and have no real allegiance to either party. Look at Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter. They'll do anything to keep their seats, up to and including sticking it to their own party.
True, except the Democrat and Republican candidate pretty much supported the same policies and he will not have much time to create any record before he's back on the campaign trail. IMO, chances are he might not win in that district again since this was a split race. Remeber, the Republican still gained thousands of votes even though she quit and backed the democrat.
If he's there long enough to get some pork into his district he'll be there long enough to make his new constituents happy. That's how it's done. And don't think his new friends in Congress won't know that and help him out.
Split race or not, the fact that the moderate Republican still got 5% of the vote is more indicative of a protest against both the more conservative challenger and the Democrat. And 5% is a fairly typical number for a protest vote. Pollsters and politicians know this. I always cast a write-in protest vote for "Anyone But" against my local Democratic alderman. I hate him. Personally. And with a passion. Unfortunately, he always runs unopposed. And I'm not the only one who does this, by the way. I'm waiting for the day when the protest vote is high enough to convince a challenger that he can run against him and win. The next guy probably won't be any better, but he also might not be trying to run me out of my home so he and his friends can make a fortune off developing the property it sits on.
I believe your wrong in that. The polls pointed to dissatisfaction with the economy in general, just not with Obama specifically. The problem Democrats have is that they are in power and have a huge majority. Who are voters going to take their frustrations out on?
It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the statistical data taken from exit polls on election day. If voters were taking their frustrations out on local politicians over the national economy, I'd be very surprised. Voting against an incumbent governor or mayor is more of a localized response to conditions for which he or she is being blamed. Independents, who'll swing either way, and who tend to be centrists and far more practical about how and why they cast their votes, don't really have the luxury of being values voters at the moment. So assuming that they are responding to the values of either party seems to me a bit foolish. And it's the Independents, not the party faithful, who are electing our official these days.
Why would they have to accept stimulus money since that money was already doled out before they were elected?
Actually, it hasn't all been doled out. The majority of the money won't come into play until next year and 2011. And they are already talking about another stimulus bill, because the first one was too small. It's staving off the worst of the damage, but it's left us with a jobless recovery, which is what many economists predicted would happen.
You're right though, no one is going to accept higher taxes. I think you will see states moving away from unfunded Federal mandates while reducing select taxes and services, as well as state employees.
They can't move away from federal mandates, funded or not. That's why they're called mandates. And the unfunded ones are tied to federal monies for other things that force the states to pay to play.
It is not about the governors themselves, it's about the swing in the electorate from just one year ago.
You mean the swing in the electorates of a few states from four years ago when the incumbent who lost was elected and didn't produce the results the people wanted, or used his position to take advantage of the public purse.
rodidog, I think the problem is that you're listening to the media hype of the talking heads. Ignore them. Pay attention to the people around you and the chatter on boards such as this one and you'll get a feel for the pulse of the electorate. Your own instincts, garnered from life experience and personal research, are a better indicator of what is likely to happen than what some fool in a suit is saying in order to get you to watch his TV program and increase his employer's advertising revenue.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS