The mid-terms: a verdict on Obama?
Just two years since widespread jubilation was seen at the election of President Barack Obama, the political direction of the US is once again in the balance. For a while, the winner-takes-all presidential election and the acceptance of the Democratic outcome disguised the deep divisions in the country. But America's version of the permanent revolution - the permanent election - makes sure those divisions may soon be to the fore again. Two very different visions of society are slugging it out.
This campaign may be one of the most venomous for a while, and it certainly is the most expensive mid-term election ever, with candidates for the House of Representatives and Senate spending just short of $2bn (£1.2bn). At least someone's got money in this country.
There is, of course, venom on both sides. But the Tea Party movement, which is perhaps the most important factor in this whole election, has made the rhetoric harsher - the ideological divide starker. Its members' mainstream conservative beliefs in smaller government and lower taxation are held with an angry passion that leads them to drive less fiscally pure Republicans out of the party. At times, these beliefs also drive Republicans to portray the mildly social-democratic president as being a communist and his whole agenda as being somehow anti-American.
In the UK, you are not allowed to campaign on election day, and TV stations are restricted to bland pictures of party leaders voting and blander commentary about the weather. But as voters go to the polls today, they will be able to hear interviews Mr Obama has pre-recorded with friendly radio stations. The recordings will likely say that while Mr Obama is not on the ballot this election, voting is still important for the future of the country, jobs, the economy and education. He's right.
The myriad of individual elections are going to be seen as a referendum on his first two years in office. The 37 governorships, 37 Senate seats and all 435 seats in the House of Representative are important in themselves, of course - some more than others. But many votes cast will be a verdict on Obama.
With high unemployment and a lacklustre recovery, all the opinion polls suggest Republicans will take control of the House and have a chance of taking the Senate, as well. In other words, the result of the referendum on Obama will almost certainly be "no". But what was the question?
Was it "has he done enough" or "should he be president"? Or was it perhaps "has he improved your life" or "should he abandon his policies"?
It's hard to say. But if the opinion polls are right, it may be that we have already seen the extent of what Mr Obama can do in office.
If conservatives dominate the House, it will very difficult for him to turn any significant promises into law. But as politicians always tell us, the only poll that counts is the one on election day. So watch this space.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~27~RS~)
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 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"The mid-terms: a verdict on Obama?"
Why is there a question mark?
Complain about this comment
At least, Obama has not been assassinated, which is a BIG step forward for the US.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the verdict is on the electorate- those who have failed to inform themselves beyond spoonfed media of colluding sponsors or those who don't so much as bother to vote.
Complain about this comment
If one could call this a verdict on Obama then I believe there are two essential issues to drive that decision. One, despite the election of 2008, America's political point of view remains right-of-centre, just as it has for the last couple decades. Two, the health care legislation didn't seem to satisfy anyone- conservatives thought it went too far, liberals didn't think it went far enough, and most moderates were turned off by the back-room deal-making that was necessary to get it passed into law- the same "Beltway tricks" that Obama and the newly-elected Democrats were supposed to be against.
This election cycle shows just how quickly tides can turn in American politics. Just two years ago Democrats boasted of having a "permanent majority" and pundits talked about how it was a change that would be felt for generations. So much for that. But it works the other way as well: despite the overwhelming victory Republicans enjoyed in the 1994 mid-term elections, Bill Clinton won a second Presidential term two years later. 2012 is still a long way away in the world of American politics, and anything can happen.
Complain about this comment
A referendum on Obama? Yes, but realistacily a referendum on the DNC and the extrem leaders allowed the important post's. A San Francisco House Rep, vs. any other Democrat for the Liberal Leader? They did it to themselves! That is the real story, The Democratic Party, as it where, used Obama, to lurch, not lead, to the Left! Barack Obama can, and I predict will be a great leader. Time will tell if the POTUS is flexible enough to Lead when given the chance...
Complain about this comment
So far, this is a referendum on the average American voter who is not very bright and influenced readily by advertising. They have forgotten who is responsible for this mess and blame Obama for not providing instant solutions to the problems despite the fact that Republicans have done everything to block him at every point. If Republicans gain what they want in this election, they will destroy this country. Why? Because they have no concern for the ordinary people only serving their corporate masters.
Peter D South Carolina
Complain about this comment
The election today is more than just a verdict on the President. It is also a verdict on Congress. From President Obama we expected leadership in changing how we viewed and handled the many issues we faced as Americans. We wanted to find common ground to resolve issues which effected all of us whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent. That did not happen in the eyes of many of us.
Neither the Stimulus nor Health Care Bills focused on our common issues with appropriate compromises to begin the long process of addressing our national issues. Instead, we received the standard bills with pay back by those now in power to those who provided votes, money or both.
Sadly, we will receive the same response if the Republicans are victorious in this election and the next one. The Republicans will be flushed with victory. They will then push through Congress their own agenda of solutions without compromise with the other sides of the political spectrum.
This election is a referendum on how the President handled Congress and on how Congress mishandled itself as usual.
Complain about this comment
As someone who lives in Washington State, but previously lived in the UK all my life the Democrats have a problem. The problem is, for America, the Republicans are right. Why? Well, having been to the licensing offices and waited for hours, having seen thousands of teachers laid off or the bad transportation system that awaits I am left wondering where does my hard earned taxes go? Why, when there is already a layer of State government is the federal government so huge? This wastage and inefficiency in public services leads one rightly to argue for a smaller, leaner government that actually does more (trust me, that would not be difficult for the US public services). Why was $400 million of public money spent on 300 jobs? Why would I want to give money to this system. That is why it is so difficult for people in the UK, who on the whole have efficient public services, to get their head around why Americans are so against paying taxes....well imagine if the UK government spent $400 million on not much.
The answer is an agenda that aims to reform public services in this country to make them efficient and meeting the needs of the public OR to really cut down on public services and let private enterprise step in. America is currently, and painfully, deciding on what is best. Maybe in the next fifty years, when all the jobs have vanished to China, will they realize what should have happened.
NB. I didn't even want to get into the need for new industries to take over the old.
Complain about this comment
You do your readers a disservice, Mr Mardell. This is no referendum on Obama at all, but an example of what happens when corporate wealth is allowed unfettered access to control what should be the public media. The campaign of hatred, anger and vitriol began even before Obama was inaugurated, and has continued unabated. Obama has done far more to tame this massive recession than Mr Busch did to quell the trifling recession of 2001, yet Fox and others have a daily diatribe against his supposed incompetence. The United States is going down a very dangerous path, and you folks on that side of the pond should make every effort to not emulate Blair's example of piously following the madness.
Complain about this comment
Every election is a referendum on the incumbents. The Democrats were given control of congress and the White House and have failed to lead. Obama has not risen above the storm to provide the leadership the country expected, miraculous as that would have had to be.
But if they win any real influence in the next two years, the Republicans will have it on a very thin veneer - the same polls that predict their victory tell us the voters despise them more than they do the Democrats - Obama, with 30 to 40 percent approval, does better than either party organization.
If there is no visible improvement in the condition of the voting public and in their confidence in their government, look for another 'tsunami' of rejection in 2012, no matter how high the wall of private moneyed interests may be, nor what banners and slogans they use to disguise themselves.
We are searching for our true enemies' faces now - and I predict we will beat the bushes until they are forced out and into the light of day.
The first true sign of the return from secret plutocracy to open democracy may be a full disclosure law. Do you think the Republican Congress will pass it?
KScurmudgeon
if this is what tea tastes like, I like it.
Complain about this comment
I recently saw an interview ith Jimmy Carter (my favourite politician of the 20th Century, by the way; if ever the Americans needed someone like him, it's now) conducted by the inimitable Bill Maher. Maher asked the former president to rate President Obama's performance thus far, and his reply was illustrative.
He stated that he thought Obama had done a tremendous job under the circumstances. When asked to elaborate, he explained that what he called a phalanx of completely irresponsible Republican Congressman had repeatedly opposed, delayed and blocked many of the President's initiatives, and that considering this, as Carter put it, reckless disregard for the right policy in favour of partisan interests, the President had done extremely well, though he acknowledged that this was not good enough.
He went on to state that he believed, counter-intuitively enough, that if the GOP, as is widely expected, gains control of one or more of the legislative houses, this might work to the President's advantage in the next two years. He explained that, right now, the Republicans have no power in Washington DC, and therefore no motivation to behave responsibly. Given control of one of the houses, they would necessarily be forced into adopting a more sensible line by the responsibilities of government, and furhermore, they would be forced to compromise with the President lest he veto their legislation.
Every new election is called the nastiest yet. Actually, just like the rest of them, it's business as usual. This one's interesting because of the Teabaggers; they seem to have successfully created a new strand of conservatism in the country. I agree with the guys over at The Young Turks, however, who describe the Teabaggers as working for the best interests of those who are financing the politicians...it is the backlash of the people who do not want Obama to do to political campaign reform what he has done to healthcare reform.
The money spent on the election campaign this year has been obscene, and people are fed up with the money men having so much influence over the course of political discussion and election.
Complain about this comment
Obama really isn't calling the shots. It's not fair to make it seem like this is a referendum on him alone. It's more of a referendum on an ideology that has existed in the US for a while, but only recently has been forced on the country in a manner which is abrupt enough for people to really notice it.
Democrats have been trying to move the country in the wrong direction for a long time. This would have occurred whether or not Obama became President. They just used Obama as the scapegoat and as a guinea pig. Obama was seen as popular enough so that he might be able to sell the socialization of the US to the American people, but at the same time he's easily cast aside in the event of a popular rejection of that project, which is what we've seen recently. If people reject the liberal agenda for the US when Obama is seen as the architect, the liberals at large can distance themselves from him, then repackage the same liberal agenda and force it along more slowly some other time. It will be seen as a failure of Obama, instead of a rejection of the liberal agenda as a whole. If Obama falls, the Democrats will try again.
What are they trying to do? They are creating a system in which the government has a larger degree of influence and control over our lives. Democrats have created healthcare system in which for the first time in the history of our country, the government will have legal authority to make decisions over intimate matters of people's lives. Nothing is more intimate than someone's healthcare. Democrats are deliberately keeping Americans unemployed and poor as these demographics are the biggest source of support for them. It's in the interest of Democrats to perpetuate unemployment and poverty. Is it not? This is one reason why Democrats oppose all efforts in the US to crack down on illegal immigration from Mexico. This is why Democrats oppose laws that require people to prove their citizenship before voting in our elections. The Democrat party, in its quest for bigger government, is basically importing its constituents from Mexico while simultaneously creating a system in which these people will become a permanent a tax burden for Americans, and a voting base for the Democrats. More poverty, which illegal immigrants bring, necessitates a larger degree of social intervention. More social intervention means more money taken from citizens, more money under the thumb of the government.
Americans are waking up. They are rejecting the implementation of the liberal agenda, it is not just a referendum on one man.
Complain about this comment
'Was it "has he done enough" or "should he be president"? Or was it perhaps "has he improved your life" or "should he abandon his policies"?'
No. No. No. Yes.
Hey, look at tha! It feels like I just voted on some American ballot :)
Complain about this comment
8. Mono20:
I think many people outside the US assume our vast federal government operates as efficiently as their smaller governments do. They should think more along the lines of an EU, about which many people seem to wonder, "Where exactly does our money go?"
The US president becomes the spokesman for the federal government. He sets the tone and articulates its direction. Obama promised to change it and that it would deliver many new services. He had no idea how difficult that would be. He has demonstrated very little control over it.
Complain about this comment
Verdict on Obama is actually wrong. The real verdict will be on how to gain power. Obama, let me remind you, came to power in the midst of the worst recessions in the history of the county, and the opposition never let up on the attacks. The Tea Party is an astroturf movement that served the GOP well, it carried out a form of national swiftboating the like I have never seen before. To even legitimize it as a "Party" is an insult to anyone with half a portion of fairness. They have used lies and inventions whenever facts did not fit their rhetoric. They have had the likes of Glenn Beck further dumbing down the populace.
It has been a sick and sorry performance. The economy is not a TV channel that can be switched to another channel. And despite all, Obama has led the country calmly and thoughtfully. He did not give in to panic like the rest. Bravo for that. And those suddenly voting against him should consider carefully what the alternative is: gridlock in the hands of the GOP, which is still seeking revenge for being shellacked by Roosevelt four times and having to see the ountry become a modern democracy rather than an old-fashioned oligarchy.
This election will be the final verdict on whether it is worthwhile conducting a campaign of disinformation and obstruction to gain power even if you have no ideas. It is a verdit on whether the American voters are mature enough to live in and care for a democracy or whether the are intellectually so run down that they can no longer recognize the most obvious frauds, like all these bizarre publicity-seekes.
Complain about this comment
First I disagree with your premise, look at the first real election, when Adams was elected. The vitriol was very vicious there.
Please don't fall into the trap of blaming the Tea Party for the tone.
Groups like Move on and SEIU are far worse.
Don't forget the Dem ad linking Bush to the lynching of two black men in Texas. Even though Bush sighned the death penalty order for one of the murders.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The 'I want it and want it now' expectations of Amerian on thier president is most unrealistic. No leader would satisfy the todays demands. Even the celebrated great leaders of the US would be found wanting by todays unrealistic demands.
Complain about this comment
I feel very sorry for Obama...for all thinking, cultured, American people, and for the rest of us for that matter, since the US are such an influential country. We are seeing the rise of the worst kind of American: the Tea Party; Sarah Pailin. They want to pay lower taxes because they don't care for the welfare of the nation, they are individualists; capitalists; red necks.
Obama has not done very well, but I can imagine the difficulties he must have to pass any resolution; to change any thing. It breaks my heart to see him, he looks like a defeated man. It also breaks my heart to see ingnorance and selfishness and greed, the worst half of the American people taking over. I guess it is in keeping with the moment in time we are living.
Complain about this comment
I said it before and I'll say it again. The problems in the US have been decades in the making. To expect Obama to fix them in just 2 years is pure fantasy. It will take decades again to get the US out of the mess. and yes, this includes both Democratic and Republican administrations. [Remarkably, it was only Carter that tried to bring these problems to the US masses - only to be hung out to dry for doing so.]
He can only steer the ship onto the right course - he cannot instantaneously teleport the US to the destination - obviously - and neither can he fix all the problems with a wave of his hand.
So when I hear everybody complaining that this is exactly what he HAD promised (via the campaign slogan "Yes We Can !", apparently), then I would have to say that you're all deluded if you think this.
Try to look beyond the 2 year horizon. Insist upon sustainable policies from each successive administration - whatever they are. Do NOT let any adminstration buy your votes with tax cuts and subsidies. And if you owe money, then raise taxes and pay the debt. It is NOT un-American to raise taxes - its just called "living within your means".
Complain about this comment
17. At 08:23am on 02 Nov 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
"Jimmy Cater who was a failure as President and now as a human being (a racist and a terrorist symathizer in the middle east and latin America) is held in contempt in america."
This is a gross exaggeration.
Complain about this comment
MagicKirin, there must be something wrong with your dendrites. You cannot compare elections of over 200 years ago with elections today. The means of communication have changed entirely. Today, the campaigns are backed by some serious research into communications as well.
What's more Carter was actually an excellent president compared with Ronald Reagan. The myth of his "success" is just that, a myth. Carter led the country out of a very difficult time, but Americans, rather than learn from what went wrong in the 70s, decided to go with Mr Dumbjoy Reagan, whose policies set the country back to the late 19th century.
No: Let us be clear: The GOP and its shilly Tea Party -- now exposed as a creation of the extreme right-wing oligarchs -- chose to attack Obama based on inventions and outright lies. Their accusation of "socialism" and "hitlerism" (the famous poster comes from the LaRouchists, of all people, a bunch quasi political maniacs) were ridiculous. And the GOP just stuck to the lie that Obama was raising taxes, etc.... All as a bow to the US oligarchs like the Koch brothers. (The BBC should know about the Kochs, because they occasionally broadcast reports by investigative journalist Greg Palast, who was one of the first to finger these shady billionnaires as string-pullers extraordinaire... ).
Complain about this comment
In response to the second to last comment.
He hasn`t been assassinated because he is a puppet of the bankers and corporations and doing there will.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #4 " most moderates were turned off by the back-room deal-making that was necessary to get it passed into law- the same "Beltway tricks" that Obama and the newly-elected Democrats were supposed to be against."
Let's not forget that C-SPAN, a public TV network whose only business is to report Congressional proceedings gavel-to-gavel, was denied access to and prohibited from broadcasting anything regarding health care 'reform' dealings.
Complain about this comment
"At least, Obama has not been assassinated, which is a BIG step forward for the US."
Unlike some leading politicians (including premier) in such civil, tolerant and progressive countries like Sweden and Netherlands. ;)
[Nice try, but no cigar]
Complain about this comment
"The campaign of hatred, anger and vitriol began even before Obama was inaugurated, and has continued unabated."
Replace 'Obama' with 'Reagan' or 'GWB' and you comment will still be valid.
Complain about this comment
"Jimmy Carter (my favourite politician of the 20th Century, by the way; if ever the Americans needed someone like him, it's now)"
Are you talking about a peanut farmer from Georgia who not reacted to Soviet invasions (by Cuban proxies) in Angola and Mozambique and thus encouraged Moscow to invade Afghanistan?
And who had no idea what was brewing in Iran, allowed an Islamist takeover of that country and betrayed our ally Reza Pahlavi in a shameful manner?
But who personally lowered White House thermostats to 68 degrees and scheduled who can play when on WH's tennis court?
Complain about this comment
" Try to look beyond the 2 year horizon."
We're already looking past 2012 presidential election.
Is that good enough for ya? :)
Complain about this comment
20. At 08:33am on 02 Nov 2010, The Toothbrush Man wrote:
So when I hear everybody complaining that this is exactly what he HAD promised (via the campaign slogan "Yes We Can !", apparently), then I would have to say that you're all deluded if you think this.
________________________________________________________
You are correct that the problems could not be fixed in 2 years. Of course, I haven't figured out how he was going to balance the budget by outspending even GWB...
However, you miss the point of those that are critical of Obama. I don’t think he's stupid; therefore I have to believe he is a deceptive snake to have said the things he said about Hope and Change when he had no intention of changing anything. His fixes are the same failed programs of the 30s and the 60s.
As soon as he was questioned about his promise to set a new tone in Washington, his response was, “We won…”
Obama deserves the criticism because if he had told the truth of what he really knew he could do once elected, McCain would have probably won since McCain never did promise us a rose garden… In other words, I’m among the 48% who bothered to vote who knew in 2008 that, “No, he couldn’t,” and since he is a product of the Chicago Machine, I knew that he knew he really couldn’t’ either, that’s what separates incompetence from bad.
Complain about this comment
ref #22 MisterFubar wrote:
MagicKirin, there must be something wrong with your dendrites. You cannot compare elections of over 200 years ago with elections today. The means of communication have changed entirely. Today, the campaigns are backed by some serious research into communications as well.
(I was refering to the hate and slander which has always been part of U.S elections. Irefer you to David McCollough biography of John Adams)
What's more Carter was actually an excellent president compared with Ronald Reagan. The myth of his "success" is just that, a myth. Carter led the country out of a very difficult time, but Americans, rather than learn from what went wrong in the 70s, decided to go with Mr Dumbjoy Reagan, whose policies set the country back to the late 19th century.
(Carter was and is a coward, he screwed up the ecomomy , made American weak in the eyes of the world. He could and would have had backing to rescure the hostage and kill Khomeni and his fellow war criminals. Reagan was far wiser and more knowledgible about the world. He understood the business creats job. Carter since leaving office has supported left wing dictators and islamic terrorists)
No: Let us be clear: The GOP and its shilly Tea Party -- now exposed as a creation of the extreme right-wing oligarchs -- chose to attack Obama based on inventions and outright lies. Their accusation of "socialism" and "hitlerism" (the famous poster comes from the LaRouchists, of all people, a bunch quasi political maniacs) were ridiculous. And the GOP just stuck to the lie that Obama was raising taxes, etc.... All as a bow to the US oligarchs like the Koch brothers. (The BBC should know about the Kochs, because they occasionally broadcast reports by investigative journalist Greg Palast, who was one of the first to finger these shady billionnaires as string-pullers extraordinaire... ).
*You don't seem to be concerned about left wing George soros who has taken over NPR, run a bogus so called watch dog group called Media Matters, nor the intimidating done by the labor unions)
Complain about this comment
there are already reports on Holder's justice dept sending in observors to allow illegal aliens to vote.
Not to mention voter fraud in IL and NV and lets not forget Democratic states not sending out military ballots out in time.
Once again the Democrats are trying to steal an election
Complain about this comment
Americans, like Germans in the 1930's, refused to look critically at an agenda represented by an unknown, unqualified person and, thus, allowed the enemy within to gain power. Obama's past associations, murky personal history and lack of any qualifications render him unfit for employment in even the lower levels of the bureauacracy. My family refuses to live under such leadership and have returned to the family's historical roots in Ireland where the government, for all of its faults, demonstrates a love of country that is lacking in the present American administration. My wish for Obama and his ilk is historical obscurity.
Complain about this comment
JonnyO, (#4. At 04:39am on 02 Nov 2010)
“... America's political point of view remains right-of-centre, just as it has for the last couple decades ...”
Wouldn’t that depend upon where one locates the center?
Complain about this comment
The Toothbrush Man, (#21. At 08:39am on 02 Nov 2010)
“17. At 08:23am on 02 Nov 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
"Jimmy Cater who was a failure as President and now as a human being (a racist and a terrorist symathizer in the middle east and latin America) is held in contempt in america."
This is a gross exaggeration.”
That is an understatement.
Complain about this comment
I find US politics amazing and odd. The Republicans have spent the last 2 years doing everything possible to prevent ANY legislation from being passed, even legislation they broadly agree with. Now they're complaining that nothing has changed - hardly surprising when they've stopped it from changing.
All of this is odd, and the opposite of what would happen in any business or organisation. In a business, it would be vital that everyone works together. You may not always agree, but you operate as a team and do your best.
Whereas in US politics, you don't operate as a team. You don't operate at all. You just do everything in your power to prevent any kind of change or progress, just so you can scream that the incumbent is powerless or incompetent. How does that help anybody?
But what is most odd about a very odd system is this: Americans are FIERCELY proud of their democracy. Their freedoms and rights are incredibly important to them, to such an extent that it freezes out all other discourse. But they VOTED FOR OBAMA. That's the result of a democratic election. Obama is Prez. So why do they think it's OK to undermine and hamstring the President just cos they don't happen to agree with him? Not many people agreed with Bush, but nobody called him a fascist or prevented him from governing. Obama is the winner of the last election, and should be allowed to govern (within constitutional limits) until he loses an election. These attempts to prevent proper governance are definitely anti-democratic, and probably anti-American (I can't be sure it's anti-America, because I've never seen a definition of "American" thinking, so I can't be sure what is "anti-American".)
I find it just plain odd.
Complain about this comment
36. At 10:39am on 02 Nov 2010, Russell Jones wrote:
The Republicans have spent the last 2 years doing everything possible to prevent ANY legislation from being passed, even legislation they broadly agree with.
______________________________________________________________________
I'm sorry, but the GOP didn't have the numbers to stop anything until Scott Brown filled Teddy's old seat and even then, it was right on the cusp (as far as I know they had a Dem or 2 for every stop they achieved). They didn't stop either SCOTUS nominee.
Therefore everything that didn't happen was because the Dems couldn't do it. The GOP sat on the sidelines (where Obama told them to sit) and watched the intra-party mud wrestling.
Complain about this comment
I think there is clear progress in the US. At least these Tea Party lunatics who think Obama is some crazy islamic communist out to destroy the US no longer wear the white cloaks and hoods that their grandparents did.
Complain about this comment
# 33 Expat Yank wrote:
"Americans, like Germans in the 1930's, refused to look critically at an agenda represented by an unknown, unqualified person and, thus, allowed the enemy within to gain power."
Yup - Obama is the new Hitler and 'the enemy within'. Sure he is. Just as well your tinfoil hat stopped him beaming his nasty socialism into your brain...
"My family refuses to live under such leadership and have returned to the family's historical roots in Ireland where the government, for all of its faults, demonstrates a love of country that is lacking in the present American administration.”
We are blessed...
The current Irish government 'for all its faults' is the most unpopular in the history of the State, and will almost certainly (based on all poll evidence) be thrown out of power quite soon, in an electoral bloodbath that will make today in the US look like a - well, a tea party. Current polls show them getting a vote in the low to mid 20's.
And who will replace them? Well, according to the political correspondent of Ireland's bestselling broadsheet, the Sunday Independent, who went through every constituency in the country 1 by 1 - our first socialist-led government ever.
Oh the irony...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#11. seanthenoisemaker. "My favourite politician of the 20th Century." I guess I would agree with you if I favoured ineptitude, inaction, indecision and simpering blandness.
If nothing else the Tea Party in the US has given ordinary people, ordinary voters an opportunity to express opinions, opinions that the elite power brokers are obliged to listen to. The liberal/left media in the US and the UK are quick to point out the inconsistent and the occasional bizarre statements, but the desire for small government and low taxes remains. What the end result will be, who knows? Probably over the next two years some kind of compromise will be effected by the Republicans that will enable them to seemingly absorb the Tea Party. There are these two years before Barack Obama has to really put his job on the line, and during these two years the opposition will hopefully coalesce.
In the UK some kind of equivalent to the Tea Party is desperately needed. In a country with complete religious toleration, you can worship Christ, or Allah, or Krishna, or Satan or the garden shed. The liberal/left sneers at Christians, especially American Evangelicals, but the Mullahs, Imams and Ayatollahs who would end that religious freedom in a heartbeat are granted respect and tolerance in the name of "multi-culturalism".
And now convicted criminals will get the vote, and we are sharing our Royal Navy with the "cheese eating surrender monkeys". What's that? A slightly bigger white flag?
Why is there no format for ordinary UK people to somehow break the hold of the governing liberal/left elite, that still rules this country?
Complain about this comment
# 40 "This comment has been referred for further consideration"
Well, I referred to MK writing, for the umpteenth time, ""Jimmy Cater (sic) who was a failure as President and now as a human being (a racist and a terrorist symathizer (sic) in the middle east and latin America) is held in contempt in america."
It can't be that.
I referred to Toothbrush Man at #21 who wrote "'This is a gross exaggeration.” I agreed. It can't be that.
I referred to #35 Chryses, who wrote, "That is an understatement.". I agreed. So it can't be that either.
I referred to MK’s claim that Carter ‘is held in contempt in america’. I pointed out that, per Wiki, he had an approval rating in early 2009 of 64%.
It can’t be that.
I may have referred to the irony of MK hurling accusations of racism, when he is very fond of claiming that any criticism of Obama leads to an allegation of…racism.
Maybe it was that?
Complain about this comment
#36. Russell Jones. Are oppositions not allowed to oppose? Should an elected government, or President have unlimited carte blanche, be allowed to do whatever he likes and say "I was elected you can do nothing about it"?
Russell, it's not just that you don't understand US politics and the checks and balances built into the constitution, I don't think you understand democracy at all.
Complain about this comment
"12. At 06:13am on 02 Nov 2010, Kent wrote:
What are they trying to do? They are creating a system in which the government has a larger degree of influence and control over our lives. Democrats have created healthcare system in which for the first time in the history of our country, the government will have legal authority to make decisions over intimate matters of people's lives. Nothing is more intimate than someone's healthcare. Democrats are deliberately keeping Americans unemployed and poor as these demographics are the biggest source of support for them. It's in the interest of Democrats to perpetuate unemployment and poverty. Is it not? This is one reason why Democrats oppose all efforts in the US to crack down on illegal immigration from Mexico. This is why Democrats oppose laws that require people to prove their citizenship before voting in our elections. The Democrat party, in its quest for bigger government, is basically importing its constituents from Mexico while simultaneously creating a system in which these people will become a permanent a tax burden for Americans, and a voting base for the Democrats. More poverty, which illegal immigrants bring, necessitates a larger degree of social intervention. More social intervention means more money taken from citizens, more money under the thumb of the government.
Americans are waking up. They are rejecting the implementation of the liberal agenda, it is not just a referendum on one man"
What kind of rubbish is it to say:-
'for the first time in US history the government will take control over the most intimate part of peoples lives' ?
In no way whatsoever is the government postulating that. Obama has introduced government run health insurance, its up to you weather you take it or not.
So how is the government controlling you? You have a choice?
And seeing as around 60 million americas had no healtcare whatsoever a government option is preferable to no option.
You should be ashamed to live in a country where people are happy to allow a significant proportion of the population to recieve no healthcare despite your country being the richest in the world.
It seems to me that you, like many americans, have given up thinking for yourself and actually doing research. Instead you are happy to be force fed purile fictional 'information' from the likes of Glen Beck and Bill O Reilly at Fox news.
Educate yourself a bit because it is clear you have no idea what Obama has been up to at all.
Complain about this comment
I'm a bit surprised that anybody ever expected anything from Obama. Expecting Obama to fix american economy is like expecting Abi Titmuss to fix credit crunch( may be she will do a better job.) Lets be clear, Americans wanted a Rock Star in the white house, and thats what they got. Now, why so much of moaning? Obama is doing all what a rock star is capable of. You want a nice dinner speech? Yes, HE can. Anything else, please...don't put him under pressure by demanding something he never heard of!
Complain about this comment
"41. At 11:36am on 02 Nov 2010, TeaPartyBrit wrote:
In the UK some kind of equivalent to the Tea Party is desperately needed. In a country with complete religious toleration, you can worship Christ, or Allah, or Krishna, or Satan or the garden shed. The liberal/left sneers at Christians, especially American Evangelicals, but the Mullahs, Imams and Ayatollahs who would end that religious freedom in a heartbeat are granted respect and tolerance in the name of "multi-culturalism".
And now convicted criminals will get the vote, and we are sharing our Royal Navy with the "cheese eating surrender monkeys". What's that? A slightly bigger white flag?
Why is there no format for ordinary UK people to somehow break the hold of the governing liberal/left elite, that still rules this country?"
In the UK we already have our equivelent to the tea party. In fact we have two:-
The British national party
and
The English defence league
As for religeous tolerance. Have you ever consdiered that people tend to be more tolerant of foreign belief systems because those people come from third world countries? Christians in the UK should know better, they have all the information that completely disproves there beliefs yet they choose to ignore it.
Nobody supports your view in the UK, or at least very few hence why our 'tea party' (BNP and EDL) are fringe parties nobody takes seriously.
Maybe british people are just better educated than americans? (obviously they are)
Also may i point out we do NOT have a 'liberal/left' media in the UK. The majority of the UK media is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is about as far right as you can get.
The mistake you are making is that because we have ofcom here and broadcasters have to abide by imprtiality laws you think those broadcasters are left wing.
They aren't they are just factual and when you look at the world factually you view murdochs view of the world with revulsion.
Complain about this comment
18. osuagwu:
"The 'I want it and want it now' expectations of Amerian on thier president is most unrealistic. No leader would satisfy the todays demands. Even the celebrated great leaders of the US would be found wanting by todays unrealistic demands."
***************
Why give Obama a pass on this American need for instant gratification? He played them like a fiddle, promising many things -- in fact, a great deal more than the nebulous "change" attributed to him. He promised lower health care costs with better medical outcomes. He referred to "his health care plan" as though one actually existed. In fact, in his rhetoric he was the originator of a great deal of actions over which he had little control. Remember his promises of line-by-line budget checks and more responsible spending?
If the demands are now considered unrealistic, Obama's promises were equally so. And if Americans are petulant children for making these demands, what does that say of a president who made the same childish promises?
Complain about this comment
41. TeaPartyBrit:
"In the UK some kind of equivalent to the Tea Party is desperately needed."
*************
I've seen many posters on the BBC grudgingly admire the Americans for being able to make their voices heard. The Tea Party -- or any grassroots political group -- is the inevitable response to a large government that is perceived as under the influence of big donors and politicians who have forgotten to whom they answer.
The ridicule is to be expected. It comes with the territory when new players are viewed as "upstarts".
There's probably a liberal activist or two (or 100) right now figuring out how to create a liberal version of the Tea Party.
Complain about this comment
44. bigsammyb:
"Educate yourself a bit because it is clear you have no idea what Obama has been up to at all."
***********
We'll all be able to "educate" ourselves about Obama's health care reforms....just as soon as the details become available. Until then, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Until then, I would counsel you to not make assertions about legislation that hasn't been written yet.
Complain about this comment
A significant defeat for Barack Obama in this mid term election would be too awful for the rest of the civilized world to contemplate. It would be similar to turning the clock back to the period before WW2 when the U.S. adopted an isolationist policy towards Europe.
The Right Wing led 'Tea Party' have set their sights on minimalistic government, by removing much of the Federal Administration, it will allow the individual states a much bigger say in how the country will be run.The essence of which wihll be America for Americans, and the rest of the World will have to play second fiddle to their selfish attitude when it comes to resources, finance, scientific research, defence and doubtless many, many other things we know prcecious little about.
So let us all hope that the Democratic Party and President Obama emerge in better fettle than the political forecasters are suggesting. It took Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt to sort things out 70-odd years ago, but I can't see anyone with their vision and inelligence on the scene. at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Europeans seem to forget that we are primarily individualist in the United States. Outside of the cities, where rent control and graft are the norm, we all have guns, families and a strong work ethic. What you are going to see today is a dismissal of Democratic Socialism. It fits as well here as the Queen. Our President has bowed to three foreign leaders. That's not how we do things here.
Complain about this comment
This campaign is the most expensive mid-term election ever, with candidates for the House of Representatives and Senate spending just short of $2bn (£1.2bn).
And this is a huge part of what is wrong with the United States; it has declined from a democracy to a plutocracy, and while I'm releasing my venom - what about those voting machines. Can these machines even be trusted?
I have nothing against small Government, as long as it can do all facits of the job. but to tell you the truth, when I foresee Tea-Party Republicans in Congress and the Senate, I shutter. It's frightening.
I hope whoever gets elected, there is enough of a mandate that at the very least Constitutional rights can be restored.
Obama should face his verdict. Who picked his key advisors, who maintained most of Bush's policies, who turned "Yes, we can!" into "Well, maybe not..."
Complain about this comment
If at all anybody to blame, it must be american voters. This is like giving $400K house loan to some one with $4 income. American voters called it a lousy practice, blamed wall street, but they did exactly the same by voting for Obama. If wall street is one reason for the mess, a huge share is going for American voters themselves. So, please don't blame Obama. You wanted to shout "Yes, we can". Even now, you can go to his rallies and shout all you CAN. (except that it got to be, "Yes, we can, but....". He is giving you that opportunity, and keep shouting happily. Anything else....errr...did he ever promise anything to you?
Complain about this comment
51. mickleon1964:
"That's not how we do things here."
*****************
And for that we will be endlessly ridiculed. C'est la vie!
Complain about this comment
Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party should have stopped trying to reach out to the Republicans months ago. They're not going to vote on anything that the Democrats put forward so it is useless to water down legislation in the hopes that one Republican will vote for it. They've said that they won't vote "yes" on legislation drafted by the Democrats and they haven't. We liberals should try not caving to Republican demands!
Complain about this comment
41. At 11:36am on 02 Nov 2010, TeaPartyBrit wrote:
"Why is there no format for ordinary UK people to somehow break the hold of the governing liberal/left elite, that still rules this country?"
Strange - I thought the UK was currently being ruled by a Conservative-led coalition that has just announced the deepest cuts in public spending since WW2.
No doubt, by your standards, Cameron and Osborne are liberal lefties...
Complain about this comment
"when I foresee Tea-Party Republicans in Congress and the Senate, I shutter. It's frightening."
To tax and spend liberal Democrats it sure is.
Complain about this comment
@Mark: "But America's version of the permanent revolution - the permanent election - makes sure those divisions may soon be to the fore again. Two very different visions of society are slugging it out."
You called it a "permanent revolution". I have in the past called it the undeclared Cold Civil War. Regardless of the terminology, I think you have it correct here.
The real difficulty is that both "visions" are conceptions of life as it was "supposed to be" some 45 or more years ago; the brutal fact that both conceptions of life were flawed then and are even more flawed today are irrelevant to the participants.
The concepts may be flawed, but the fight is very real. The fact that the society itself, and the hopes of those in the future, are being shredded and destroyed as "collateral damage" in the ongoing political warfare is of no consequence to the partisans; for them, winning is not only the most important thing, it's the only thing that gives their life meaning. What a dreadful state to be in.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say with confidence that it's an ongoing battle for me to keep from being sucked into the undertow of all this. It's hard to keep sifting for what truth can be found, and to keep a firm grip on my emotions. Sometimes I don't succeed. I'm convinced, however, that if we don't do these things, we are sunk and the partisans "win" (in the same sense that someone "wins" after a 500,000-warhead nuclear exchange, with each warhead in the 10 MT range).
From neither party have I seen any real plan, any real effort to address what's in front of us. In every area we have significant challenges and some hard questions to answer, and more and more it appears to me that my generation (the Boomers) and those following are going to have to sacrifice on a scale we have never conceived of before in order to begin to right the ship of state. I don't think the problems are un-solvable; however, I don't think any of it is going to be easy.
We are going to have to have a serious national conversation about our economy, jobs, and our collective future. We are going to have to ask some pointed questions:
a. Where can we still compete globally today, with the education that our people have?
b. Where should we be aiming to compete globally tomorrow?
c. What additional education do we need to build in our youngsters to make them ready for (b)?
d. Is the education system delivering (c)? If not, what needs to change in order for it to do so?
e. How do we retrain our adults to handle (a) and especially (b)?
f. How do we pay for (a) through (e)?
g. What's the real imbalance between what we WANT as a nation and what we are willing to pay for, counting our debt as a sunk cost that must be covered? What are the real options for closing the gap between these two, and how realizable are any of those options:
(1) Some folks want to "tax the rich" to close the gap; how much can that be done before there's a flight of capital and talent out of the US?
(2) Some folks want to cut this or that; what happens if that's done, and what happens to the folks who are being supported by the items being cut?
(3) Some folks want to grow out of our debt; how realistic is that?
h. For all of these questions, we will be bombarded with half-truths. How can we properly punish the purveyors of half-truths, so we can get to at least a closer understanding of where we really are?
I'm ready for this kind of discussion, and for some real actions leading out of it. I don't know, however, how to get our leaders to start looking at things.
@10 (KsC): "But if they win any real influence in the next two years, the Republicans will have it on a very thin veneer - the same polls that predict their victory tell us the voters despise them more than they do the Democrats - Obama, with 30 to 40 percent approval, does better than either party organization."
You are exactly right. I am faced in this election with two sets of choices, both of which I truly despise. I do see the Congress being bought and sold like cattle, regardless of party. The issue of money--regardless of where it comes from, or to which party it goes--buying influence in the Congress is one that is going to continue to strangle our government until it is not just brought under control, but firmly shackled.
"We are searching for our true enemies' faces now - and I predict we will beat the bushes until they are forced out and into the light of day."
I hope you are correct, KsC, and I'll be pitching until they are not only unmasked, but removed from positions of power. My next opportunity is at the polls this afternoon, but the next opportunity after that is the same one I had yesterday--to be an involved, engaged citizen, seeking to guard the freedom of those around me, and not to be manipulated as a pawn.
"The first true sign of the return from secret plutocracy to open democracy may be a full disclosure law. Do you think the Republican Congress will pass it?"
I don't think they will have a choice, but watch out for the details. Remember that incumbents of BOTH parties have a vested interest in seeing the current system NOT change. A real change will be a hard-fought thing to achieve.
I still believe that only individuals should be able to contribute, and that only from money that they have personally controlled for some significant period of time. I don't think my ideas will be considered, however...that would be a bridge too far.
@15 (MF):"...gridlock in the hands of the GOP, which is still seeking revenge for being shellacked by Roosevelt four times and having to see the ountry become a modern democracy rather than an old-fashioned oligarchy."
That's highly unlikely, since anyone who was in the GOP at that time has been dead now for many years. You are reaching here.
The Ds had the opportunity to establish a long run, and completely blew it by focusing (as Clinton did) on what most Americans thought was a peripheral issue. Health care was NOT the most important thing on the radar, but by focusing there rather than on basic rebuilding of the economy, the Ds shot their advantage with not much to show for it. Clinton made the same mistake.
@20 (TBM): "I said it before and I'll say it again. The problems in the US have been decades in the making. To expect Obama to fix them in just 2 years is pure fantasy. It will take decades again to get the US out of the mess. and yes, this includes both Democratic and Republican administrations. [Remarkably, it was only Carter that tried to bring these problems to the US masses - only to be hung out to dry for doing so.]"
I agree with what you wrote, except about Carter. He tried to deal with some things, that is true, but his implementation was so clumsy that he wound up doing more harm than good. His method of leadership was to sound defeat...not a very good way to move the ball forward.
@36 (RJ): "Whereas in US politics, you don't operate as a team. You don't operate at all. You just do everything in your power to prevent any kind of change or progress, just so you can scream that the incumbent is powerless or incompetent. How does that help anybody?"
Welcome to the perpetual campaign. I guarantee that within a week we will already be talking about the 2012 election, and folks will be forming exploratory committees, etc., to start looking at possibilities.
Governance is far away from these folks' concern.
Regards to all. If you are an American citizen, GO VOTE!
Arclight
Complain about this comment
10. At 05:52am on 02 Nov 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"The first true sign of the return from secret plutocracy to open democracy may be a full disclosure law. Do you think the Republican Congress will pass it?"
__________
Were on the same wavelength here.
It appears that President Obama should perhaps have made campaign finance reform an earlier priority than health care reform.
Complain about this comment
"49. At 12:13pm on 02 Nov 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
44. bigsammyb:
"Educate yourself a bit because it is clear you have no idea what Obama has been up to at all."
***********
We'll all be able to "educate" ourselves about Obama's health care reforms....just as soon as the details become available. Until then, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Until then, I would counsel you to not make assertions about legislation that hasn't been written yet."
Oh please you know very well what Obama is postulating. Even if he did have the desire to create an American version of the NHS you know as well as i do congress would never pass it whether it is filled by democrats or republicans. They are far too keen to keep hold of the lucrative jobs promised to them by health insurance companies.
And if America did get an NHS? (not that there is even a remote possibility) it would be a good thing. Americans should be ashamed to have a health service akin to a third world country.
Complain about this comment
@52 (BB): "when I foresee Tea-Party Republicans in Congress and the Senate, I shutter."
Uh, unless you are a camera, I think you mean shudder (grin).
"I hope whoever gets elected, there is enough of a mandate that at the very least Constitutional rights can be restored."
This is a more serious charge. Which enumerated Constitutional rights do you believe have been removed, and by who, and how, and when?
@50 (S):"A significant defeat for Barack Obama in this mid term election would be too awful for the rest of the civilized world to contemplate. It would be similar to turning the clock back to the period before WW2 when the U.S. adopted an isolationist policy towards Europe."
Two comments:
1. Obama isn't running. While he is the titular head of the Democrat Party at this time, by virtue of his holding the Presidency, it's impossible to conclude that he personally is being defeated because the Congress is undergoing change. You are making the mistake too many folks make--that somehow the Presidency is the only thing that matters in the US government.
Whatever happens in the midterm elections, Obama isn't being "defeated".
2. The United States has elections every two years. Very little is going to happen between now and 2012 that is going to change the entire shape of the world, at least not based on the actions of the Congress. Your concern is unwarranted insofar as the Congress is concerned.
Arclight
Complain about this comment
Yes, it is, and the verdict wil be "Obama has been a huge disappointment".
It's hilarious that he's managed to annoy pretty much everyone, from his political opponents to his own party members. He's annoyed his top brass, got walked over by the Chinese and the Iranian leadership and has shown enough weakness to the USA's Islamist enemies that they can now, quite legitimitely, claim to have beaten the US. He's introduced a new health service, with massive costs in the face of huge opposition, and has won a Pyrrhic victory. He's still trying to dismember Serbia, regardless of the consequences of this for other countries with restive provinces.
Still, he thoroughly deservd that Nobel prize, didn't he? Can anyone remind me what it was for? Ah yes- hope. The only thing that he did manage to deliver...
Complain about this comment
#46. bigsammyb. "Nobody or at least very few people agree with your view, that is why the BNP and the EDL are small fringe parties" or words to that effect.
You have made a great assumption as to whom I would identify with politically and as it happens you are wrong. One way of marginalising somebody's opinions is to exaggerate them. You still have not answered as to why certain people who claim no religious belief are far more tolerant of Islam than they are of Christianity. Christians should know better....They have all the facts that prove their beliefs wrong but chose to ignore them....
The existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. Atheism is as much an expression of faith as Christianity or Islam or any religion.
You are of course entitled to your opinions and to express them and long may it continue, I just fear such tolerance is in danger.
We do not have a liberal/left media in the UK? Not at all? No Guardian or Observer? When did they go out of business?
People in the UK are obviously better educated than Americans. And the education system is a source of pride and wonder in the UK? 60 years ago, undoubtedly, not now. Unfortunately we adopted an American style comprehensive system, so I'd say we are equally poor now, although they do apparently have some good universities over there, as do we thankfully.
Complain about this comment
Our first President George Washington ( an ex-Brit ) warned us about "foreign entanglements" but we have Israel firmly on our backs. We did not listen.
Our second President John Adams ( another ex-Brit )warned us about the danger of partisan politics undermining the Union. We did not listen.We now have gridlock.
The USA must go back and fix the basics and start the " experiment " over.
What we are doing is not working.
Complain about this comment
The Democrats forgot that we put them in power in 2006 and 2008 because the Republicans squandered our savings. They said they would end deficit spending. Instead, all they have done is pass more and more spending bills that we can't afford. This is a vote against Democrats, not for Republicans. However, in a two-party system, that's all that's possible. Keep voting people out until someone gets the hint and does what's right.
Complain about this comment
ref #50
Steve wrote:
A significant defeat for Barack Obama in this mid term election would be too awful for the rest of the civilized world to contemplate. It would be similar to turning the clock back to the period before WW2 when the U.S. adopted an isolationist policy towards Europe.
_______________-
First whoever is elected to office, the first prioity is to the U.S. Not to the rest of the world.
Second you are complaining about U.S being isolationist,it won't happen. But all we heard during GWB years the U.s should stop intefering and leave the world along.
You want the U.S to help but also the right to dictate who we help and what we do?
Complain about this comment
ref #59
Interestedforeigner wrote:
10. At 05:52am on 02 Nov 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote:
"The first true sign of the return from secret plutocracy to open democracy may be a full disclosure law. Do you think the Republican Congress will pass it?"
__________
Were on the same wavelength here.
It appears that President Obama should perhaps have made campaign finance reform an earlier priority than health care reform.
_)--
Would you also support unions having to get written permission from individual members to use their dues to support the Dems?
Complain about this comment
The Republican strategy to undermine the Presidency through deception and untruths has rallied the uninformed. No solution put forward, no details, no plans, just jingles and phrases. Will all make the path for the President easier in 2012. Once the agenda is revealed they will be cast out in two years. The promoters of big business and banking carried on the backs of those who will suffer the most from this agenda. "Patriots" undermining the country for the benefit of the wealthy.
Complain about this comment
One comment is telling..it is not a vote on Obama, and yet it has been made out to be one.
The Republicans were in power for 8 years, and did little of what they so vociferously expouse today.
Eiight years marked by war and lost opportunities, and above all greed.
For once it seemed Americans have woken up to the mess the country is in, when they chose Obama.
His hands were then tied, but he was supposed to steer this behemoth..out of mess.
I am no communist or socialist or capitalist, I think majority of Americans are like ordinary people living around the world, trying to go about their daily business, and all they need is good governance, minus this special interest money fueled rhetoric, and those who advertise for these interests.
In the end its not just Americans who get affected, unfortunately or fortunately..policies of the US government affect, many lives outside American. So the Americans need to choose carefully how they would like to shape their world at home and beyond.
Complain about this comment
58. arclightt:
You have captured the issues well. We need to prepare the country for 2020. Right now, we need to stimulate job growth and investment in the US through careful taxation, while cutting spending carefully.
The first politician that can articulate this will capture my attention. I will, however, be more suspicious of grand promises after Obama. We will need to get the "how" as well as the "what" from future presidential candidates.
Complain about this comment
So what's the first item on the agenda when the house reconvenes with a republican majority?
Try to repeal healthcare?
Cut taxes?
Balance the budget? (Just kidding)
Will the agenda be different if there is a GOP majority in the senate too?
Does anybody have a plan that will create jobs? Or is the plan to continue slinging mud?
Complain about this comment
68. At 1:30pm on 02 Nov 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:
The Republican strategy to undermine the Presidency through deception and untruths has rallied the uninformed.
____________________________________________________________
Could you give some examples of these deceptions? Obama's deceptions have already been documented on this string. I hear lots of solutions coming from the GOP. How did you miss them? Do you keep your TV on MSNBC and get all of your information from Chris "My Leg is Tingling" Matthews, per chance? If you want some examples of what the GOP has promised to do:
1. Repeal, or at least greatly modify Obamacare
2. Extend the Bush tax cuts
3. Don’t back down to the Islamists
4. Don‘t close Gitmo
5. Balance the budget, cut gov’t waste and spending
You may not like their plan, but they do have one. If they don’t deliver, there is always 2012 for them and I think they got the message.
Complain about this comment
The moment Mr. Obama fired General McChrystal, failing a major test in his leadership, he lost the respect and support of a significant and influential group in America. He came out of that meeting a different man than when he went in. The leaking of more than half a million classified documents, seeking to erode public support for military action in the mideast, at best shows incompetency on the part of the Obama administration, and at worst indicates conspiracy to bolster up Obama's dangerous politics of withdrawal. It all mirrors his utterly botched handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, where it proved easier to fire key officials, than to take any blame upon the U.S. government for pushing through (under the Obama administration) the drilling of a well (without environmental impact studies) that was, only sparse decades ago, considered exceptional and undrillable. Add a health care reform that simply throws large amounts of money at an out of control and corrupt private medical system, crippling insurance industry attempts at controls, and starting an essentially self supervised, thus uncontrollable, medical gold rush. The real opponents, including doctors who do not agree with that type of system, remained unheard. Instead efforts have been made to attack "socialized" medicine in Canada and perhaps beyond, with a strong push to "privatization" to make them more American and less competitive with the doomed to failure U.S. model. Add to that the immense volume of fiscal legislation that makes no real fundamental changes to how the USA manages the input of capital into the financial system, and does excessively little to regulate where and how it is used. Add to that the new crop of debt that inadequate and poorly thought out stimulus programs, have brought about, threatening another abyss of fiscal disaster. Add to that the simple facts that Mr. Obama has not even begun to make a real start at remedying the extremely deteriorated and unjust situations that exist within America's urban areas, such as Camden, downtown Detroit and many other places, in a post Cold War failure to rebuild what amount to being the Cold War ruins of the American apocalypse that happened differently than mutually assured destruction promised. Mr. Obama has failed. He has failed more than any other president in recent memory has failed. In some ways he is becoming the example of failure, and because he is black, it is also now less likely that America will see another black president in the White House for a very very very long time.
Complain about this comment
Just finished voting, every American should even if you support Obama and Pelosi.
Police kept away any Jack booted union thugs or baton wielding New Black Panthers
Complain about this comment
In reply to post 28. I would say that the war in Afghanistan did more to topple the Soviet Union than any other factor. It caused tremendous pressure on the economy and ruined the morale of the army. I think it was more likely that Carter didn't think these areas a priority for American concern. He was right. Did it profit the Soviets to get involved with any of these areas? No!
What happened in Iran can be solely credited to the shameful actions of the CIA in the years before Carter's presidency. They organised a coup d'état against the democratically elected President Mossedech in the 50s, replacing him with the Shah, who was more amenable to American exploitation of his land and people. How would you feel if you had chosen a government, only for the KGB to get rid of your leader and replace him with their's? Pretty angry, no? Wanting to send a message, would you be? Feeling revolutionary in this paradigm are we? And, lest we forget, the real legwork in achieving the hostages' release was done by Carter. Reagan, who had only been in the job for a total of 6 minutes when they were released, was careful to claim all of the credit.
Your last comment has to do with Carter's PR campaign to support his energy policy. America continues to race towards oblivion with its oil consumption, when if Carter's plans had been enacted, the dependance on foreign oil today would not be nearly as problematic. You just don't like Carter because he told the American people of the gravity of the situation facing them, whereas Reagan made everyone feel good. History will decide who made the more valuable contribution. It wasn't Reagan.
Complain about this comment
As an American I am voting today against Obama and his ilk to reduce the government. I am voting to maintain my freedom of choice. I am voting to do something about the debt and make this a better country for future generations. I resent what Obama has done, I resent his Robin Hood antics of stealing from hard working people and passing it out to the less industries. I resent his extreme liberalism and like many from the UK I resent obama's support of illegals who threaten our customs, beliefs and financial welfare. This is not a Democratic or Republican fight for many of us. Both parties represent extremes now and no longer stand for the values that this country once believed in. For me America really is the home of the brave and land of the free and we don't need big brother in every facet of our lives.
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb wrote "Christians in the UK should know better, they have all the information that completely disproves there beliefs yet they choose to ignore it."
Man, I must have missed that, care to elaborate?
bigsammyb wrote "Americans should be ashamed to have a health service akin to a third world country."
I'm guessing you have never been treated in or maybe even never been to a third world country..?
Complain about this comment
Campaign finance reform is the real issue. In the UK, Lord Ashcroft bought as much of the election for the Tories as possible, and they still failed to win a outright majority...I wonder what the results would've been if the financial playing field had been level? Would the Tories' policies have won over the people? Obviously that's a very sarcastic rhetorical...
Complain about this comment
Perhaps on a grand scale this election might seem like a verdict for MrO
-- but not when you look really close.
Lots of people vote for candidates, not parties.
And sometimes, the candidate with the platform that works for your community isn't in the party you'd usually choose.
In recent years I've voted Republican, Democrat, Green, Independent and Green-Rainbow (in MA) depending upon the candidates and their platforms.
______________________
Of course, today I voted Democrat in Philadelphia... and the lines were longer than they were for the Primaries, but shorter than they were for Obama.
It's gonna be a tight race... partly because neither Senate Candidate is ideal. Folks have told me their choice was between Dumb and Dumber, so they're voting for the guy that's merely Dumb. (ouch.)
Complain about this comment
From the moment Obama took office, Republicans have been blaming him for everything the Republicans "achieved" in the previous 8 years. And to top it off, Republicans have prevented any semblance of cooperation in the process of governing, even to the point of denying that they were for some policies before Obama was in office. A real triumph of hypocrisy.
And now, it appears that the Reublicants will achieve their goals of keeping the American people that voted for Obama in 2008 from achieving what should have been an improvement in economic competitiveness through real reform of the health care system and attendant costs.
So apparently the Republican strategy of preventing Obama from governing effectively and hurting America instead is a winning strategy for the Republicans. Too bad the knee jerk conservatives in America are so easily convinced of their rich masters bidding. Lower taxes solve everything. Republican sentiment is nothing more than "I've got mine, screw you."
Complain about this comment
At 58, Arclight wrote a good posting.
"g. What's the real imbalance between what we WANT as a nation and what we are willing to pay for, counting our debt as a sunk cost that must be covered? What are the real options for closing the gap between these two, and how realizable are any of those options:
(1) Some folks want to "tax the rich" to close the gap; how much can that be done before there's a flight of capital and talent out of the US?
(2) Some folks want to cut this or that; what happens if that's done, and what happens to the folks who are being supported by the items being cut?
(3) Some folks want to grow out of our debt; how realistic is that?
h. For all of these questions, we will be bombarded with half-truths. How can we properly punish the purveyors of half-truths, so we can get to at least a closer understanding of where we really are?
I'm ready for this kind of discussion, and for some real actions leading out of it. I don't know, however, how to get our leaders to start looking at things."
____________
Couldn't agree more.
We need to have this kind of adult discussion.
Complain about this comment
78. At 2:43pm on 02 Nov 2010, seanthenoisemaker wrote:
Campaign finance reform is the real issue.
_______________________________________________________
Campaign finance reform has already run afoul of the 1st amendment. The answer in this country is full public disclosure, regardless of whether a candidate accepts federal funds or party funds or whatever. For every contribution received, regardless of amount or source. Obama dodged disclosure in the general election after campaigning on it in the primaries and yet 52% of my fellow citizens could not see the hypocrisy in this; could not see the hallmarks of the Chicago Machine… Just let the people know who paid for the clever ads all the time.
Complain about this comment
looks as if we're in for a "clinton" repeat, with "special prosecutors" and even impeachment hearings - IF the right-wingnuts do succeed.
what misery to see such a beautiful idea like American democracy, disfigured by 4 billion dollars in partisan bigotry. yes, this was the amount spent by all seeking power, and none them give a hoot about YOU or USA.
Complain about this comment
All right, it's time to face facts even if they are unpleasant. Here is what I have observed and think will happen.
1. From day one of this administration the Republicans have decided to take their ball and go home. refusing to cooperate with the Admininistration on any piece of legislation. They have decided to say no to everything in an effort to discourage OBamas Democratic base so that they themselves can regain power. It is there belief that most poeple will blame Obama for the troubles that they themselves have caused. I believe that this is partially true. I believe the majority of Americans believe Obama hasn't tried to stand up to the Republican Party's obstinence. Most people feel he gone out of his way in cooperating with a constituancy that has no interest in cooperating with him.
2. The REpublicans are recieving a lot of undeclared funding from People like the Koch Brothers and Ruppert Murdoch, who owns Fox News Channel and Sky Television. Murdoch's tv holdings promote his right wing agenda and really don't try and to be fair and balenced. I know for a fact that most of Fox News Channels "personalities" are either very influential in the GOP, or prominent members of the American right. These People include not only Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'rielly but also several former Republican Presidential candidates including Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and former Bush Political strategist Karl Rove who is currently funding several Republican candidates through his "Freedomworks Foundation." More information on these people can be found at media matters, who do a pretty good job correcting Fox's errors.
The Koch Brothers and the Koch Foundation are the wealthy benifactors of the so Called "Tea Party." Contrary to popular belief, the Tea Party is not some grass roots movement, but a well organized political tool by two rich siblings, who wish to exploit peoples anger for their own gain, and not for the benifit of the people.
3. When the Republicans take power, they will no doubt try and repeal Healthcare Reform, and Wall STreet Reform inspite of the fact that they know that there efforts at repeal will be vetoed. They also know that they will not have anywhere near enough votes to override such a veto.
4. The frustration republicans feal over not being able to get their repeal of healthcare will lead them to impeach the president and vicepresident in a purely political move just so they can weeken him before the 2012 election.
Complain about this comment
President Obama though he made the history by becoming first African American president and he might succeeded a little relatively in some areas, but he let down all those who had high expectation and hope that he will be different from previous conservatives regime which made the world worse place in terms of peace and justice.
Human rights violation and hell of Guantanamo bay(s) still there.
So changing in US is far!
Complain about this comment
As to the big picture, I agree with posts 8 & 12. People often forget that election turnout can be based on local or statewide issues. My poor little state has been overrun with liberal Democrats whose policies in the state legislature have bankrupted working families, forced jobs out of state, and have made unreasonable demands on our limited wealth with unsustainable entitlement programs. We are trying to replace our moderate Republican governor with another. That is our issue here.
On the federal level, we have a 36 year senator up for election. Other than bringing some pork barrel Immigration projects here, and acting if he alone decides on Federal judgeships, he has done nothing but follow the liberal Democrat line. I would dearly love to see him retire, but his opposition is, as always, an underfunded unknown. We also have a fairly inoffensive Democrat congressman, whose primary opponent is a former radio host, booted out of the military for marijuana use. They both will be re-elected and our state will not change Congress.
Local issues are driving us to the polls today. I have never seen such vitriolic Washington-funded ads in my life until this year.
PS to those outside the US, believe us stupid at your peril. We are just different, with a completely different system.
Complain about this comment
Re. comment 58. from Arclight
Amidst the usual frenzy of partisan snarling and mudslinging that follows any BBC story about US politics, your post is like a breath of fresh air.
In particular, while not framed as such, your stated wish "to be an involved, engaged citizen, seeking to guard the freedom of those around me, and not to be manipulated as a pawn" is the clearest synopsis of the US constituion that I have ever read.
Madison, Jefferson and the other framers are standing at your shoulder, my friend.
Keep posting.
JB
Complain about this comment
Re 83 you're absolutely spot on. They don't care about America or the people who live their. They'd just as soon send jobs overseas if it improved their bottom lines. What is frustrating is the fact that the REpublicans know that they can get what they want by achieving two things.
1. keeping voter turn out low
2. exploiting peoples fears.
REpublicans know that they are the benifactors of lower turn outs at the polls. I am a firm believer that if everyone voted who was eligable to vote then the republicans wouldn't be anywhere near power.
In addition, they know that many of the people who do vote are fearful of poeple who are "differant". PEople who are generally affaird of minorities, whether these minorities are African Americans, Muslims, Hispanics, or people of the LGBT community. The Gop knows that they can gain votes by expoiting peoples fears.
Complain about this comment
84. wintersstorm:
"Obama mortgage help program failed."
************
Two points about the mortgage mess. First, Americans are not necessarily willing to bailout homeowners who got in over their heads and shouldn't have. Instead, regulations have been proposed to prevent predatory lending, and banks are being closely examined in their foreclosure dealings.
Second, the sooner we get through the entirety of foreclosures, the sooner the market will get back to its equilibrium. Until then, we are just delaying the housing market's return to health (if you can call it that).
Unfortunately, economists believe we are about to experience another large wave of foreclosures -- ones that were delayed but were never to have been avoided, despite what people thought.
Complain about this comment
The comment about Presidential assassinations by Haberendt is absurd. I am a proud American and a proud Republican. I am strongly opposed to the policies of President Obama. However, he is my President and the thought of him being assassinated is horrible. The man that attempted to assassinate President Reagan is insane. He said he was trying to impress a Hollywood actress and he is still institutionalized today. President Kennedy was assassinated by an admitted Communist. By the way, we Americans are not fond of Communism, or Socialism if you really want to know the truth. Haberendt is guilty of using the same kind of leftist hate speech that Americans tired of.
Complain about this comment
"Human rights violation and hell of Guantanamo bay(s) still there.
So changing in US is far!"
No human rights violations there, it's a military prison. If you ask me, no humans kept there either.
Complain about this comment
85. At 3:26pm on 02 Nov 2010, American Sport Fan wrote:
From day one of this administration the Republicans have decided to take their ball and go home. refusing to cooperate with the Admininistration on any piece of legislation.
___________________________________________________________
Did you just teleport from an alternative universe? As has already been mentioned here, Obama told the GOP that he wasn’t interested in compromise. They could take his program or leave it. What would you do, knowing your constituency did not want you to acquiesce without any give and take?
I still don’t understand why you libs keeping blaming the GOP when the Dems had enough members to do what they wanted if they all really wanted Obama’s program. Well, they didn’t, did they? Why blame Republicans for Obama’s shortcomings when he had the majority in both houses and couldn’t deliver? Do you think that maybe his plans were too extreme for even some of his fellow Dems? If so, why would somebody from a conservative district go along? That doesn’t even make sense!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
84. At 3:23pm on 02 Nov 2010, wintersstorm wrote:
obama problem is he ignored the major issue which is unemployment (aka jobs) as they said during the George HW Bush vs Bill Clinton election it is the economy stupid.
------------------------------------
Obama's problem is that he defered too much to congress. Obama is a good cheerleader but not a good political leader. Americans wanted so bad to turn our country around that we fell for a cheer (myself included). He's been in office two years and still blames the previous administration; I think it's time for him to let that go. I was no fan of Bush, but that argument 2 yrs on just makes it seem as though Obama doesn't have a real plan. When I look back at the 08 election, I think we were just so desperate and liked his cheer that we completely overlooked his lack of experience and credibility. I hope we have learned something and don't just desperately vote Tea Party people in.
Complain about this comment
Mickleon, that is the scary part! How exactly do Americans do things, then? Invade an innocent (of complicity on 9/11) country, kill off thousands of Americans and Iraqis, rob,lie, cheat and steal billions of dollars, and let the USA's economy collapse while your President slaps an idiot on the back ("Heck of a job, Brownie!") and ignores the worst natural disaster to hit the gulf coast, then scream bloody murder because a BLACK man was elected to be President?
Yup, y'all come back, y'heah!
Complain about this comment
43 #TeaPartyBrit:
I do understand democracy. The USA elects a President every 4 years. That President makes election pledges, and has a mandate to carry out those pledges.
Of course an opposition can oppose - good government requires good opposition. But there's a difference (I feel) between opposition and downright bloody-mindedness. Oppositions in most parts of the world work with the government (often behind the scenes) to build stronger, better laws and promote growth, civility, etc. Of course there is disagreement, but the systems in most countries have a provision for overcoming deadlock. The US doesn't seem to have such a system.
The reason almost all general elections in almost all countries are held every 4 or 5 years is that it takes 4 or 5 years to make significant changes in a country. You can't (or shouldn't) have a system where you vote for a leader, and then immediately after the election the losing side can effectively stymie all of that leader's plans. In the UK if the government was weak or incompetent we'd have a "vote of confidence". If the government lost that vote a general election would be called. There would be no stagnation.
Whereas in the USA the mid-terms seem to be a vote of confidence. But they're not, because Obama stays in no matter what. If (when) Obama loses, he'll just be forced to sit in office doing nothing for 2 years, and the country will stagnate. It's nuts!
I'm not promoting Obama or opposing the Tea Party. I'm just commenting on the function of the US government. It prevents almost all change, even though change is exactly what Obama's supporters AND the Tea Party want. People of all parties get frustrated, and now they're getting angry too.
I know it's not my place to suggest alternatives - the US need to do that for themselves. But it just seems like a mad system at the moment. It promotes inactive government. And it's not helped by a belief amongst a lot of people (from all sides) that if they REALLY REALLY disagree with an election result, they can ignore or overturn it. Sorry, but democracy means sometimes you have to do what the majority voted for, even if you hate it. They voted for 4 years of Obama, and he still has 2 to go. Be a proper oppposition, not just someone who disagrees with everything Obama says on general principal.
Complain about this comment
94. At 3:55pm on 02 Nov 2010, bigsammyb wrote:
- the world is NOT 6000 years old
_________________________________________________________
I have read lot of theological books, papers and assorted pamphlets and I have never seen any Christian scholar peg the age of the Earth at 6,000 years. Where did you get that number? Most creationists accept that the current world order is around 10,000 years old and makes no comment on the age of the 3rd rock from the sun on which this current order is built. However, if you want to tilt that windmill, go for it.
Can you prove that man descended from any ape? By the rules of science: there was no direct observation and it has never been reproduced in the lab. Therefore, your belief system is just, a belief system; that takes just as much faith (I think more blind faith) to adhere to than to accept the evidence that Christ rose from the dead and paid the price for our sins.
However I do admire your fanatical zeal for your faith system.
Complain about this comment
85. At 3:26pm on 02 Nov 2010, American Sport Fan wrote:
From day one of this administration the Republicans have decided to take their ball and go home. refusing to cooperate with the Admininistration on any piece of legislation.
93. At 3:54pm on 02 Nov 2010, Oldloadr wrote:
Did you just teleport from an alternative universe? ...
I still don’t understand why you libs keeping blaming the GOP when the Dems had enough members to do what they wanted if they all really wanted Obama’s program.
_________________________
Sorry old chap, but might you have just harkened from a variant dimension?
Obama HAS compromised.
On many things.
For example, Health Care Reform in some fashion NEEDED to go through. There was (is) a certain minority group of Americans who were (are) literally dying for lack of coverage.
Obama tried to see a plan go through while he still had majority support on Capitol Hill, but it didn't fly... because a majority of Americans didn't see the point and our Leadless Fearers were afraid they'd get voted out.
So Obama watered down it's policy until it looked like a plan that the GOP had suggested previously... and STILL the GOP fought it tooth and nail. Why? Because they want Obama/The Dems to look bad.
IOW: The GOP want their White House back, and the only thing they've been compromising has been their responsibility to the American People.
Complain about this comment
Taking the risk of actually addressing the blog post...
The political science literature leaves little doubt that midterm results are the result of two main forces:
(1) a general trend against the incumbent party (sometimes termed "presidential punishment"), partly as a desire to produce moderate policy outcomes by balancing partisan control;
(2) a mitigation or reinforcement of (1) by general views of individual presidents' performance, most notably by the state of the national economy.
So, yes, the midterms will be both referenda on President Obama and bad for the Dems -- the historic tendencies will be reinforced by continuing poor economic conditions.
For an article on this topic see
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
82. #Oldloadr
As I understand it, the 1st amendment guarantees "free speech". A politician's speech is not free if somebody is paying for it. Solve funding, and you solve special interests. That leads to better government for all, not just for those who have paid for it.
Complain about this comment
To all those who say the Democrats should've used their majority...they had a Senate majority, which was enough to pass legislation, but they didn't have the 60% needed to beat the fillibuster. To suggest that Obama could've rammed his agenda through Congress because his party controlled both houses is misleading because the Republicans repeatedly fillibustered everything in the Senate.
Complain about this comment
bigsammyb wrote "Need i go on? Christanity is proven to be false as is islam and judaism"
Well you do and you don't. You do because that didn't explain anything as to the dispoved faith. You don't because...this is just too much.
Complain about this comment
97. At 4:05pm on 02 Nov 2010, Russell Jones wrote:
But it just seems like a mad system at the moment. It promotes inactive government. And it's not helped by a belief amongst a lot of people (from all sides) that if they REALLY REALLY disagree with an election result, they can ignore or overturn it. Sorry, but democracy means sometimes you have to do what the majority voted for, even if you hate it. They voted for 4 years of Obama, and he still has 2 to go.
___________________________________________________________________
1. Many who oppose Obama are hoping for inactive gov’t. the definition of an American conservative is somebody who thinks the gov’t has done too much already.
2. If the congress changes hands (especially the House) it will be because many of those who voted for Obama and his party cohorts in Congress have now changed their minds for any or all of the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, it will still be democracy in action and the majority will still be getting what they want.
What’s the problem?
Complain about this comment
Here is a democratic think tank that will be examining democratic voters after this election. Specifically, it will be looking at democrats who voted republican or who didn't vote. This group sounds interesting. The results of that poll will be, too.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44523.html
Complain about this comment
86. ibnunuh wrote:
"... Human rights violation and hell of Guantanamo bay(s) still there.
So changing in US is far!"
I'm sad about Guantanamo, too. But he's working on it. He's taken a stand against the use of torture and the cases at Gitmo are being reviewed. Many of them have been closed. Folks have even been sent home.
There HAVE been changes.
There HAS been progress.
But if you're looking for a grand vizier capable of forcing a nation to do what it doesn't want to do... the POTUS will disappoint,
-- because he's not OUR boss. We're HIS boss.
Complain about this comment
[Obama's] been in office two years and still blames the previous administration; I think it's time for him to let that go.
----------------
As a Brit I am interested in the outcome of the US elections because of how important the USA is to the world, and would not presume to advise an American on how to vote as I do not have a full grasp of the issues, but I envy you if you can get Obama to do this, as well as applaud you for getting tired of it after only 2 years (if he has done this; I wouldn't know).
In my family we refer to it as the 'Conservative Government Excuse'(name is not a signal of chosen political leanings but of political reality as has been for past decade and more). Example:
'Will the minister admit [policy] has been a total failure?'
'Ah, but that is not what we are discussing here; what we are discussing is the appalling record of the last Conservative government!'
Or,
'Will the minister admit that was a fine cricket match last night?'
'Ah, but that is not what we are discussing here; what we are discussing is the appalling record of the last Conservative government!'.
Our last government was still pulling that one after 13 years in power (adding to it with, 'fear what they might do in the future') and I am sure our present one will be using its reverse, the Labour Government Excuse, for the full five year term and beyond if they get the chance.
Good luck if you can change that sort of thing across the pond.
Complain about this comment
I seriously can't believe the public, in the UKor US sometimes. In the US, Obama has brought in a form of healthcare that will help the majority of citizens in having health insurance when they wouldn't have had any (and could have done better if Republicans had not been so anti this and in the pockets of insurance companies) and has tried to tackle the deficit in a similar way to FDR but using the public sector to encourage employment and therefore growth - yet he looks to be getting a slating. David Cameron and Nick Clegg slash most of the vulnerable people's budgets and the public sector which is more likely to cause unemployment, yet are riding fine in the polls - huh!? The majority of people don't seem to understand that cutting the public sector now creates unemployment as the private sector, in a recesssion, is also cutting back. Many economists have said this. Yet, due to the spending power and outright lies the GOP have been using, the public never seem to be informed of this, or just don't believe it. Everybody wake up - stop the cuts by having liberals/sustainable and progressive parties in power or you will end up in a worse mess than we are already.
Complain about this comment
41. #TeaPartyBrit
I don't think there's a liberal conspiracy to broadcast liberal ideas to this country (the UK). There are cross-party committees who oversee broadcasters on TV and radio (via OFCOM, the regulator). There are ways to complain, and to have complaints investigated and upheld. So TV and radio can show NO editorial opinion whatsoever. It's forbidden. They are neither right- nor left-wing.
As other people have pointed out, our print media doesn't have to follow OFCOM rules, but is self-regulating, and is predominently owned and run by right-wing people (Murdoch, Dacre, etc). A few papers have a left-of-centre bias (The Guardian, The Mirror), but most are right-of-centre by almost any independent measurement. I defy you to tell me the Daily Mail is left-of-centre. Go on, do it, it'd make me laugh.
Of course, whether you believe any of that depends on whether you think you are personally in "the centre" of politics. We almost all assume our opinion is "normal", but if you think the press and media are all left wing, the chances are that's because you're to the right-of-centre. That's not meant to be an insult, just an observation. I'm to the left-of-centre, but if you told me so I wouldn't think it was an insult.
And as for an "elite" (liberal or otherwise)... sorry, but I don't see why that is a bad thing. Elite means "the best". Why wouldn't you want to be governed by the best people? Would you prefer to be governed by Dean Gaffney?
Or if you wish to use the other definition of the word "elite", it means people in a privilaged position. In which case, sorry, but the UK Conservative party is about as "elite" as it's possible to get - more than 50% of them went to Eton or other top fee-paying schools, are barristers, or are members of families with hereditary titles. That is VERY elite indeed - and not exactly liberal.
The term "liberal elite" is a lazy blanket insult, when what you probably mean is "clever people with a different opinion to mine".
Complain about this comment
99. At 4:14pm on 02 Nov 2010, Philly-Mom wrote:
Obama tried to see a plan go through while he still had majority support on Capitol Hill, but it didn't fly... because a majority of Americans didn't see the point and our Leadless Fearers were afraid they'd get voted out.
____________________________________________________
Well, it could be that some Dems knew Obamacare was an albatross around their necks. BTW, it’s not brave to vote in the House for something that your constituency is dead set against; it’s called arrogance. There’s a reason we call them representatives. Many of the Blue-dogs that caved to SanFranNan are losing their seats right now because their districts have not forgiven them.
Still, why should the GOP do anything after the way Obama treated them at his so-called health care summit and after it became obvious that his own party wasn't totally behind the idea, especially when there were better options available? If a person sincerely believes that Obama is a stuffed shirt from the Chicago Machine that just got in the way of real American statesmen in the last election (by that I mean both McCain and HRC), why shouldn’t that person work to defeat him at every turn?
Complain about this comment
"And, lest we forget, the real legwork in achieving the hostages' release was done by Carter."
No it as not. The only thing Carter did was to attempt a poorly designed rescue mission which ended in a complete fiasco.
Iranians didn't want to deal with Carter at all.
They've made approaches to Reagan many weeks before his swearing-in.
Why?
Because they the loathed Jimmy whom they considered a wimp, but believed an image of Ronnie as a "trigger happy cowboy" (created by his leftist opponents, nota bene) who should better be appeased than provoked.
And that's why American hostages were released.
BTW. Qadafi also saw the light only after he got almost killed in F-111 airstrike ordered by Reagan.
[how soon they forget!]
Complain about this comment
101. At 4:18pm on 02 Nov 2010, Russell Jones wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I agree with what I told you or not, but it is what it is, and the SCOTUS has interpreted that any limitation on political contributions is a limit on free speech, that is the free speech (or expression) of the contributor. Therefore, we could argue if the SCOTUS was correct in their interpretation, but right now that is the law of the land so that's why I said full disclosure is the only option to clean up the underbelly of American politics.
Complain about this comment
In the U. S. system of governance , participation of eligible voters and /or Congressmen has been a prerequisite to deliberate and deliver , that determines the success and failure of governance . There has been an expectation divide here , and it is not all President's fault . The Blue Dog Democrats (elected in 2008 from the Red or Republican States) kept running away scared and the GOP made an strategic decision not vote and deliberate in the Senate , on almost all important and key issues that came up for deliberations and votes , in the last two years . This was a set back for participatory system of governance . The future would not be very promising , if the GOP minority leaders in the House and the Senate would pursue their recently stated strategy : " The Republican leader of the House actually said that: " this is not the time for compromise ." And the Republican leader of the Senate said his main goal after this election is simply to win the next one ." President Obama's hope and expectations that : " But when the ballots are cast and the voting is done , we need to put this kind of partisanship aside -- win, lose, or draw . " I have no doubt that in the aftermath of Tuesday elections , there would not be any substantial or positive cooperation for the President 's legislative agenda and programs , by the GOP in the next Congress .
Complain about this comment
106. At 4:25pm on 02 Nov 2010, Philly-Mom wrote:
But if you're looking for a grand vizier capable of forcing a nation to do what it doesn't want to do... the POTUS will disappoint,
-- because he's not OUR boss. We're HIS boss.
___________________________________________________________
A-men, sister!
Complain about this comment
104. #Oldloadr
1: Perhaps I just don't understand the concept of an inactive government. Because to me, no government is the same thing as anarchy. They have no government in Somalia, and look how that turned out. I can understand a smaller government, or a different government. But regardless of what Tea Party activists may want to believe, government is necessary. Even if you don't agree with it right now, it has to function in some way.
2: I don't disagree. I think it's entirely correct to be able to vote at the appropriate times. I just feel that the SYSTEM is wrong. If Obama loses the House (as he probably will) he'll still have 2 years in office, but be unable to do anything his supporters want. The House will have 2 years of a President blocking their activity. Nobody wins. Wheres in the UK we have a system where a government can lose a majority in parliament, or can lose a parliamentary vote of "no confidence". In either case there is a general election and a whole new government. No stagnation, just change.
I don't personally like the Tea Party, but that's not my argument. My argument is that regardless of the politicians involved, the system actively encourages inactive government. And nobody gets the change they want.
Complain about this comment
"Folks have even been sent home. [from Gitmo]
Like that "innocent" Saudi fellow who after being released from Guantanamo went immediately to Yemen and joined al-Qaida in Arab Peninsula. ;)
Complain about this comment
108. At 4:30pm on 02 Nov 2010, busker999 wrote:
....The majority of people don't seem to understand .....
---------------------------------------------------
The voters are dumb. The politicians are dumber (especially after today).
The funders are the bright ones.
Complain about this comment
Re 93
I am not living in an alternative Universe.
I am mearly stating the facts. The REpublicans seem to be putting there party's political interests ahead of the country's interests. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnel Said as much last weak when he said that their goal was to make Obama a one term president.
Complain about this comment
Quick Non Sequitur
I certainly don't want to interfere with bysammy (#94) and TeaPartyBrit(#63) while they finally resolve that nasty 'existence-of-G-d/ess(es)' debate, but I just stumbled upon an amusing quote they might enjoy:
"Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You’re thinking of Jesus."
Ha! Good one!
[And now, back to the show.]
Complain about this comment
118. #American Sport Fan
I'm emphatically NOT a Republican. But maybe they feel that making Obama a 1-term president is for the good of the country? I couldn't disagree with them more, but I try to see all sides of an argument.
Complain about this comment
115. At 4:51pm on 02 Nov 2010, Russell Jones wrote:
Perhaps I just don't understand the concept of an inactive government. Because to me, no government is the same thing as anarchy.
_________________________________________________________________
We have actually had split gov't for over half of the last 60 years and it's not anarchy. The gov't still creates budgets and pays bills. We had split gov't during the cold war and fielded new weapons systems during split gov'ts. You just don't get any grand schemes like The Great Society during split gov't and that is fine with most conservatives. Although, we did get welfare reform from the Clinton/Gingrich non-team...
Complain about this comment
118. At 5:01pm on 02 Nov 2010, American Sport Fan wrote:
The REpublicans seem to be putting there party's political interests ahead of the country's interests.
________________________________________________________
If one believes that Obama is an anchor around the neck of liberty and his ideology is closer to Hugo Chaves then Harry Truman, than to work to defeat Obama is putting your country first and is an act of patriotism.
Complain about this comment
Re: The political poison permeating America at the moment, disguised as the GOP vs. Democrats is really a scene finding the rich pitting themselves against the poor, safely enscounced (they believe) inside their gated communities far from the maddening crowd BUT the emerging specter of an all-out culture is set to reveal just how strong those gates-----
Obama has done more for America's "have-nots" than any President since Ike Eishenhower (and he didn't set the world on fire by any means---) and its driving to near insanity the "fatted calves" of the Republican Party!
Complain about this comment
To Oldloader #122
So just to be clear:
To defeat the US president is to be patriotic and
to support the US president is to be patriotic.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It is really a shame that so many Americans think that by limiting the power of the citizens' government they will increase the freedom and power of individuals to run their own lives. Just like it was on the old frontier... Of course, the corporations that are funding the "small government is good" party are laughing on the sidelines as they prepare to usurp all the governing power for themselves. If corporatism is liberty, then black is white and war really is peace.
Complain about this comment
122. #Oldloadr
True. If one believes that he's Hugo Chavez and an anchor around the neck of liberty. But if one believes that, one will never want for moonshine.
Honestly guys, I have no problem with political discussions, even quite heated ones. But Obama is no more a communist than he is Hitler or Donald Duck. By the standards of almost any other developed country, Obama is ve-e-e-e-ery slightly left of centre. Very slightly. If he was a member of the UK or Australian Labour party, he'd be on the centre-right of those parties. At worst, a liberal. Not even a socialist. Not even within shouting distance of communism.
And lack of liberty? What liberties has he removed, exactly? Right to vote? To free assembly? To protest? Free speech? Right to bear arms? Rigth to legal council? Right to... aw come on, help me here guys, I want to know what liberties he's stolen from you.
As far as I can see, he's GIVEN the right to healthcare and he's GIVEN freedom to innocent people in Gitmo (you can argue about their innocence, but under YOUR constitution they're innocent until proven guilty - and many of them haven't even been charged, let alone convicted).
Let's dial down the rhetoric a little, shall we? He's not a communist, he's a traditional Christian Democrat (by European, Australasian or Canadia standards). He's not a demagogue who wants to eat your children or ban you from worshipping. He probably doesn't like guns much. Neither do I, but I'm not going to destroy America because you like guns a little bit TOO much, and neither is he.
He's not a Muslim, he just doesn't hate or fear Muslims, and that's because he's a grown-up who recognises that "different" does not mean "threat".
He's not from space, and he's not been sent here to destroy America from within. He is - and I know this might be a shock to some of you, so brace yourselves - he is an American man who was elected by the majority of American people, and is considered pretty bright and successful by pretty much everybody outside of the USA, and at least 40% of people inside the USA.
I'm not doing the "blame the last administration" thing, so I won't talk about "inheritance". I'll just say that his starting point - for whatever reason - was minus $1.3 trillion and plus two wars. He has to climb that far before he starts making ANY improvements. And that is not his fault, is it?
Under those circumstances Obama has done remarkably well. Not God-like genius, but not terrible either. I'd say he's competent and probably visionary, but hamstrung. And he doesn't fight back as much as I'd like, which makes him seem like the Republicans are running the show.
But as for being a communist... honestly guys, let's all just calm down, shall we?
Complain about this comment
124. At 5:49pm on 02 Nov 2010, _marko wrote:
So just to be clear:
To defeat the US president is to be patriotic and
to support the US president is to be patriotic.
____________________________________________________________________
Yep, that's what happens when you have culture warfare, class warfare, etc. Do you notice that it's always the left leaning commenters here that always introduce either class or religion in just about every debate (including this one)?
Just tell me: What would you call it if you felt the current president was doing his best to ruin the country?
Complain about this comment
_marko wrote "So just to be clear:
To defeat the US president is to be patriotic and
to support the US president is to be patriotic. "
Not everything is so black and white like you thought, right? Only sheep follow blindly...
Complain about this comment
This is NO verdict on Obama. The Republicans (the party of NO) have blocked most of the legislation Mr O and his party have sponsored. The remainder is so badly marred by compromise that it is more Repub than Dem. The voter has every right to be unhappy with lack of progress, but to say that this reflects Mr O's policies is a bit of Repub spin. Thanks Mr M!
Complain about this comment
RE 120 I see what you're saying but the fact remains that Senator McConnell and Representative Beohner were elected because people in their districts believed they would represent their interests and not the interests of the Republican Party. However, Beohner and McConnel believe in putting party first and country second. Bit of a shame really.
Complain about this comment
RE By that logic, PEople should support Sharon Angle or Christine O'Donnell (Miss I am Not a Witch) and Sarah Palin, who thinks she can see Russia from her house.
But it is faulty logic, that is very short sighted. It promotes an US vs Them mentality that is more devisive that it is liberating.
PArt of the problem is the fact that Corporate America and the Rich People incharge have decided that they Don't want to pay anything in the way of taxes, so they have said decided to promote a message of lower taxes and more spending on Defense, which is ludicris to be sure. They have tried to co-opt the message of our founding fathers and claim that Washington, Jefferson, Adams et all would be completely against TAXES.
Yet that really isn't the case at all. ( I would like to appologize in advance to the good people of Great Britian for what I am about to say.) Our founding fathers had no problem with the concept of paying taxes so that the Government could better serve the people. Rahter, therre issue was the fact that they had no representation determining how those taxes were imposed or who those taxes were impossed on by King George. That's a completely different notion than what the TEa Party wants America to believe.
Complain about this comment
Russell Jones wrote:
"innocent people in Gitmo (you can argue about their innocence, but under YOUR constitution they're innocent until proven guilty "
US Constitutional rights do not apply to citizens of other countries. How difficult is this to understand?
"As far as I can see, he's GIVEN the right to healthcare "
Right to health care is as absurd as "right to have food".
"He's not a Muslim, he just doesn't hate or fear Muslims"
Don't disagree with you here, but he did have a celebratory Ramadan dinner in the white house. That was weird I thought.
"But Obama is no more a communist than he is Hitler or Donald Duck".
He doesn't need to be to alienate people. All he needs to do is say something to the effect that all those rich folks have to share...and of course mandate a purchase of a product, which he did right?
Complain about this comment
Post 111. Exactly my point. Reagan was careful to claim credit for the final release, and as part of the transition you'd have expected him and his team to be abreast of the developing situation because they were soon to assume responsibility for it. But if you think that in 6 minutes' worth of presidency Reagan managed to do everything that was done to secure their release, and that in the previous year Carter had done nothing to contribute to the final outcome, then you're a moron.
If you think the Iranians took personal issue with Carter and kept the crisis dragging along for this reason, then I draw two inevitable conclusions. One, that you have not made the necessary research into the internal state of Iranian affairs at that time; I think it much fairer to credit the post-revolutionary instability and power vacuum for the inability of the Iranians to maintain a consistent line, resulting in the continuation of the crisis, rather than how the Iranians felt about Carter himself. Two, that you are letting your personal feelings about Carter cloud your judgment as to his performance on this issue.
I personally think that without the year of careful, patient diplomacy that Carter employed, it is much more likely that the hostages would've been killed. Certainly, Reagan's gung-ho attitude in the election campaign didn't help the process, and if he had been president at the time and followed these policies through, I very much doubt there would've been anything other than a massive war against Iran.
Carter lost a lot of political face due to his actions. He consistently did the right thing over what would make him look good to the voters. That was his biggest mistake in the 1980 election.
Complain about this comment
In my view, these elections are a referendum on the character of the American people, both voters and stay-at-homes. But then that's true of every election isn't it? The people are heard (or stay home in bed) -- then immediately start looking for -anybody- to blame if things turn out badly, except themselves.
Iraqis and Afghans must be looking on in wonder and thinking "This can all be ours someday?"
Complain about this comment
ref 122 Russel Jones
Oh and most importantly "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is NOT in the US constitution.
Complain about this comment
A lot has been made of the Tea Party movement in this election year. Google "Ross Perot" and you'll find that the idea the Federal government is out of control and needs to be reined in by a grassroots political movement did not sprout from the earth after Obama's election.
Complain about this comment
Re 133
The problem is that the American Right has tried to portray the President as both a Nazi and Communist in spite of the fact that they are two ideologically opposit philosophies. Yet that doesn't prevent them from comparing the president to those despots. This is the type of Rhetoric that hurts democracy.
Complain about this comment
As an aside, who here thinks Christine O'Donnell, idiot though she is, is a stone cold hotty!
Complain about this comment
marko 124 wrote:
To defeat the US president is to be patriotic and
to support the US president is to be patriotic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Support your country all the time, but support your govt. only when it deserves it."
I think this might have been a saying by Mark Twain...
I didn't vote for or support Bush (he's too far right) and I did vote for, but now don't support Obama (he's now too far left). But I do support and love our country, forever and always...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent 12 wrote:
Americans are waking up. They are rejecting the implementation of the liberal agenda, it is not just a referendum on one man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent's blog is right on.
How Obama dealt with the Ground Zero Mosque, Arizona and immigration, Holder's comments about race, gay rights, etc. is why I no longer support Obama...
Complain about this comment
Wow. Such a lot of discussion about something that's really common in american politics.
Newly elected presidents pretty much always get clobbered during the mid-terms - especially if they are elected when the economy is down the toilet.
The electorate suddenly want the entire economy turned around in less than 22 months. It was never going to happen - and it's the state of the economy rather than political ideology that the vast majority of Americans care about.
That's why new presidents get all their really important, controversial legislation through during those months. It hurts their mid-terms, but they're going to get hit anyway, and it means they actually manage to get legislation through.
However, just as much as american voters vote against the President's party at the mid-terms, they also tend to side with encumbant presidents come re-election day.
The next two years will see a much more moderate, voter-friendly president, and the effects of legislation passed in the first two years
will finally start showing benefits, while at the same time the electorate gets used to the ideas behind them.
In two years time, the economy will be in better shape, and like say, Reagan, Obama will win re-election.
Complain about this comment
I read a column in the paper this morning from a nationally syndicated writer explaining that President Obama's problems are all because of his race and that the Tea Party movement is motivated by racism.
I'm not going to say that there aren't people who may feel that way about him but seriously, if the race card is the best card the Democrats have in their hand on election day then they deserve to lose.
Complain about this comment
To Oldloader #128
"What would you call it if you felt the current president was doing his best to ruin the country?"
I'd call it speculation/delusion/rhetoric, unless it was matched with supporting evidence: a specific list of ruinous items that you oppose together with a list of specific alternative regenerative actions that you support.
Complain about this comment
Re 138
Granted there were significant differences in what either regime stood for. Also I agree that the use of the "Reductum ad Hitlerum" is thrown around (as it was also in regards to Bush).
But instead of comparing roots or ideologies we should compare outcomes. And those are strikingly similar...as can be physically counted by deaths of millions.
Complain about this comment
Even though we cannot get rid of Obama at this election we are hoping it will put an end to his agenda.
With the departure of Nancy Pelosi the Obama brand of socialism should be over with.
It can then follow all the other failed socialist schemes into histories dumpster.
Complain about this comment
ref #142
Scott0962 wrote:
I read a column in the paper this morning from a nationally syndicated writer explaining that President Obama's problems are all because of his race and that the Tea Party movement is motivated by racism.
I'm not going to say that there aren't people who may feel that way about him but seriously, if the race card is the best card the Democrats have in their hand on election day then they deserve to lose.
__________________
Who was the writers, I read three papers 2 Boston and NYT, and if the writer was Paul Krugman or Frank Rich I could care less that they are nationaly syndicated anymore that the left is regarding Michelle Malkin.
Complain about this comment
"145. At 7:03pm on 02 Nov 2010, Leicesterlad wrote:
Even though we cannot get rid of Obama at this election we are hoping it will put an end to his agenda.
With the departure of Nancy Pelosi the Obama brand of socialism should be over with.
It can then follow all the other failed socialist schemes into histories dumpster."
What like pretty much every single government in europe? Oh i guess europe does not exist in your world.
Complain about this comment
Re 136
Innocent until proven may not be in the US constitution but it is something we inherited from the British, along with Trial by Jury and Magna Carta.
Re 144
I will have you know that comparrisions between Nazi Germany and Bush Era America were more apt, especially when you take into consideration that both Bush's grandfather (Prescott Bush) and his great grandfather (George Herbert Walker) supported the Nazi's during the 1930's.
Complain about this comment
"As far as I can see, he's GIVEN the right to healthcare "
Right to health care is as absurd as "right to have food".
---
Oddyly enough, many people outside the US *do* feel that the right not to starve to death is actually a right.
This is why the US is viewed as so backward by other western countries in many respects, because unlike all other developed nations, it doesn't at least try to guarantee all its citizens a very basic standard of living to help ensure their survival.
Even the most conservative governments in countries like Japan and Germany (with (generally speaking) thriving economies I might add) are still very much to the left to what you have in the US.
The US's view of 'rights' is still stuck somewhere close to 1789, when slavery was still common place and people died young earning next to nothing in dimly lit factories.
Complain about this comment
"Russell Jones wrote:
"innocent people in Gitmo (you can argue about their innocence, but under YOUR constitution they're innocent until proven guilty "
US Constitutional rights do not apply to citizens of other countries. How difficult is this to understand?
"As far as I can see, he's GIVEN the right to healthcare "
Right to health care is as absurd as "right to have food".
"He's not a Muslim, he just doesn't hate or fear Muslims"
Don't disagree with you here, but he did have a celebratory Ramadan dinner in the white house. That was weird I thought.
"But Obama is no more a communist than he is Hitler or Donald Duck".
He doesn't need to be to alienate people. All he needs to do is say something to the effect that all those rich folks have to share...and of course mandate a purchase of a product, which he did right?"
Your method of quoting makes it hard to understand what your saying and what you are quoting, but did i just 'hear' you say:-
"Right to health care is as absurd as right to have food"
Did i? Because what worries me most is that the phrase kind of asumes EVERYONE would OBVIOUSLY consider it ridiculous that people have a right to have food.
You know what? I work for a living i pay lots of taxes (far more here in the UK than the US) and i would be ashamed to be english if i thought my government would allow members of society to starve to death or to die of desease when food and healthcare was possible for them.
Anyone who thinks they want to live in a society that allows its poorest and most vulnerable people to starve to death and/or die of desease is a monster who makes me sick to the stomach.
Complain about this comment
144 bogdan
"Also I agree that the use of the "Reductum ad Hitlerum" is thrown around (as it was also in regards to Bush)."
Agreed that it is the end of the debate when the Hitler/Stalin accusations rear their ugly heads (and I mean on both left and right).
That notwithstanding it is interesting to compare the reasons for the vitriolic condemnation of both Bush and Obama - draw your own conclusions.
anti-Bush rhetoric mainly concenred itself with
1) costly and unnecessary war in Iraq which has made the world less safe and given justification to a huge number of newly.radicalised terrorists
2) tax cuts for the richest 5%
3) aid packages for AIDS-affected developping nations that came with a stipulation that abstinance be promoted over condoms
4) is stupid
anti-Obama rhetoric
1) reversing said tax cuts
2) trying to provide decent healthcare for all citizens
3) is a commie / muslim / not American etc etc etc
4) is intelligent
5) is "elite" (which is ironic considering his background and that his predecessor was from an old-money establishment family)
Just sayin'!
Complain about this comment
Note to Russell Jones: I appreciate your thoughtful comments, too bad so many people don't even know what socialism is. Much less capitalism and democracy.
I saw a woman in the checkout line the other day, examining the cover of a tabloid which proclaimed 'Prince Charles is gay!!' She pointed it out to the cashier and exclaimed: 'I didn't know that!' This is the real problem with US politics.
Complain about this comment
#94. bigsammyd. Such an honour to be educated by someone so sure of the total accuracy of his or her opinions, so convinced they are right and the huge majority of the world's population which believes in a God of some kind or other, is wrong. What a philosopher, what a scientist, what a gift to the human race, that we have someone to put us right and save us from deserved ridicule.
Complain about this comment
American Sport fan wrote: both Bush's grandfather (Prescott Bush) and his great grandfather (George Herbert Walker) supported the Nazi's during the 1930's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're going to blame Bush for his grandfather and great-grandfather actions? Bush is a lot of things, but that's ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bigsammy wrote: Anyone who thinks they want to live in a society that allows its poorest and most vulnerable people to starve to death and/or die of desease is a monster who makes me sick to the stomach.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's every single country in the world...
Complain about this comment
Except those countries that practise a welfare state and socialised health care.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
sean wrote: Except those countries that practise a welfare state and socialised health care.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So Great Britain is perfect and does not have a single hungry person and treats every disease for free?
Complain about this comment
There is no reason for any citizen of the UK to starve, or be homeless, because the welfare state entitles a person to enough money to feed and house themselves if they have no other income. If people do starve, it's because they didn't want to claim the money they're entitled to.
The NHS provides good healthcare for everyone and, while it's not cutting edge, we have a lower rate of disease than the US, and preventable diseases rarely kill in the UK.
It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "**** 'em."
Complain about this comment
154. LucyJ wrote:
American Sport fan wrote: both Bush's grandfather (Prescott Bush) and his great grandfather (George Herbert Walker) supported the Nazi's during the 1930's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're going to blame Bush for his grandfather and great-grandfather actions? Bush is a lot of things, but that's ridiculous.
........
Lucy, I am in the unusual position of agreeing with you .... the sins of the the fathers should not be visited on the sons.
However, when the sins of the fathers created such enormous wealth that leads to power and influence down the generations then it is perhaps relevent for the information to be acknowledged.
In the same vein ... how many of you own kitchen appliances by Krupp ... who made their name making much bigger and more dangerous things out of steel.
Lucy
Complain about this comment
157 lucy
"So Great Britain is perfect and does not have a single hungry person and treats every disease for free?"
I can't speak for the hungry, but yes medical treatment is free.
Complain about this comment
RE 154
I'm not judging Shrub by the actions of his family, but it seems to me that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. While president, Bush instituted tax cuts for the wealth, cut regulation and approved warrentless wire taps of critics of the administration. So the Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Complain about this comment
133. #Bogdan wrote:
Did you really just say:
Right to health care is as absurd as "right to have food".
?!
I do believe there should be a right to have food. The alternative is that we have a right to allow fellow citizens to starve, isn't it? Or have I misunderstood you?
When you dual 911, you're offered 3 services: fire, police and ambulance. All of these are services you need in a critical emergency.
Imagine your home is burgled, and you call the police. They start chasing the thief down the street, but after 200 yards they stop because your "police insurance" has run out.
Or the fire service turn up, and give you a choice: they can put out the fire in the front of your home, or in back. But not both, cos your "fire insurance doesn't cover it".
Police, fire and HEALTH are things on which all of society depends, and from which all of society benefits. To fight against a medical safety net is just irrational. And in my opinion, quite cruel to those condemned to having no access to care.
Complain about this comment
Rome Stu wrote: I can't speak for the hungry, but yes medical treatment is free.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you have to pay a hunk of your paycheck for it to be 'free.' It works for GB and that's great. USA's just a different system and we have our own way of functioning, which is why we need our own solution...
Look, there are good things about Great Britain and there are good things about USA. I'm just saying that no country is perfect and that there are hungry people in every country in the world because there are poor people in every country in the world.
I just don't believe that 'perfect' exists...
Complain about this comment
163 lucy
That really is the most vacuous drivel.
Of course we pay taxes to fund healthcare - and that is the cheapest way to fund it for everybody.
[[The "hunk" of our paycheck isn't nearly as big as that in the US (unless you're in the top 2-3% of earners in which case you can afford it) and it all goes to healthcare, not to dividends and profits.]]
From each according to their means, for all according to their needs.
Sounds like something Jesus might have said, doesn't it.
Complain about this comment
Russell Jones, (#101. At 4:18pm on 02 Nov 2010)
“... A politician's speech is not free if somebody is paying for it ...”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The two are not the same.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu wrote: Of course we pay taxes to fund healthcare - and that is the cheapest way to fund it for everybody.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am in support of universal health care, if it is done in a responsible way. The work is in the details.
I am against Obama's health care plan first and foremost because of the mandate, which I believe is unconstitutional.
I am against Obama's health care plan second because it does not cover all Americans. And by American, I do not mean an illegal who crossed the border- real Americans.
Complain about this comment
Russell Jones, (#162. At 10:10pm on 02 Nov 2010)
“... I do believe there should be a right to have food ...”
I think what you mean is that there should be an entitlement program. Human rights are not the same as Government entitlements.
Complain about this comment
Dan, (#149. At 7:22pm on 02 Nov 2010)
“... Oddyly enough, many people outside the US *do* feel that the right not to starve to death is actually a right ...”
Fair enough, but this election is occurring inside the U.S.
“... Even the most conservative governments in countries like Japan and Germany (with (generally speaking) thriving economies I might add) are still very much to the left to what you have in the US ...”
That does not make their preferences correct.
“... The US's view of 'rights' is still stuck somewhere close to 1789 ...”
Pure nonsense. Civil Rights. Women’s Rights. Gay Rights. The Right to Privacy. Where do you get such foolish notions?
Complain about this comment
re. #150. At 7:24pm on 02 Nov 2010, bigsammyb wrote:
"Right to health care is as absurd as right to have food"
Did i? Because what worries me most is that the phrase kind of asumes EVERYONE would OBVIOUSLY consider it ridiculous that people have a right to have food.
You know what? I work for a living i pay lots of taxes (far more here in the UK than the US) and i would be ashamed to be english if i thought my government would allow members of society to starve to death or to die of desease when food and healthcare was possible for them.
--------------
I don't think any civilized person would be in favor of letting people starve or die of disease just because they're poor. The question is whether it is the proper role of government to support them indefinitely as an entitlement or to support them temporarily while helping them find the means to support themselves. Human society is not mathematics where every problem has only one correct solution, there is room for variation and differing ratios of public and private components in the solutions.
Complain about this comment
10. At 05:52am on 02 Nov 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote, as usual,
common sense.
If more liberals were like me and more conservatives were like KScurmudgeon, then we would argue, consider the public weal and find the best compromise for the good of the majority.
Unfortunately the temperature is heated by vested interests, corporatists, and emotive, but non-thinking, non compromising persons of left and right.
Complain about this comment
re.#160. At 9:14pm on 02 Nov 2010, RomeStu wrote:
157 lucy
"So Great Britain is perfect and does not have a single hungry person and treats every disease for free?"
I can't speak for the hungry, but yes medical treatment is free.
------------
That's not what she asked. She asked if treatment for every disease was covered by the national health. Yes or no? If No, why not? If Yes, to what extent? Surely there must be limitations, or as the unenlightened would put it: rationing?
You can't convince me that in a country as class conscious as the UK that the upper crust trot down to the National Health and wait in the queue with the common folk when they need to see a doctor. Money talks when seeking health care, even in Britain. Give yourselves a deserved pat yourselves on the back for doing more for those on the bottom wrung of society but please hold off on telling us that yours is the solution to our problem.
Americans are well aware of the strengths and wekneses of our health care system and the need to make reforms but over here the national debate on how to do it is only beginning. The Democrats rushed through their version of reform without allowing real debate or time to build a consensus among the people about what health reform should include, that has created resistance and quite probably a plan that itself will need serious reform even if it survives the court challenges it already faces. Don't be surprised if in the end we don't come up with a solution that suits us without copying the one Britain came up with.
Complain about this comment
Russell Jones, (#127. At 5:59pm on 02 Nov 2010)
"... By the standards of almost any other developed country, Obama is ve-e-e-e-ery slightly left of centre ..."
True, but only Americans get to vote in these elections.
"... And lack of liberty? What liberties has he removed, exactly? Right to vote? To free assembly? To protest? Free speech? Right to bear arms? Rigth to legal council? Right to... aw come on, help me here guys, I want to know what liberties he's stolen from you ..."
If you do want to learn, here is the answer. The U.S. Constitution entitles Congress to regulate commerce (Article 1, Section 8). This permits compelling employers to provide health insurance, and compelling insurers to provide coverage. That part will withstand constitutional challenge. The law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is on unstable legal ground where it uses the same authority to mandate that citizens purchase health insurance, either through their employer or through government sponsored entities. As there is a provision for an individual mandate, Section 1501, there is legal standing for the States' suits.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment 10.
I decline to engage in a legal debate on this topic, but I hope that you now better appreciate this basis for some people's opinions.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu, (#160. At 9:14pm on 02 Nov 2010)
“... I can't speak for the hungry, but yes medical treatment is free.“
Let’s not embellish the NHS too much.
There are treatments for diseases that the NHS will not authorize. Here is a link about that: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1263223/NHS-rationing-body-denies-15-life-saving-drugs-cancer-patients.html
Complain about this comment
RE 128, OL
"Just tell me: What would you call it if you felt the current president was doing his best to ruin the country?"
I said that George W. Bush was trampling on the US Constitution [and I have stated why],
I said he was violating the separation of church and state by trying to force the dogma of his base onto everybody [and I can point to specifics].
I did not call him a Nazi, Fascist or Communist because that would have been untrue. Many of the attacks on President Obama have been of the untrue variety.
Complain about this comment
133. At 6:32pm on 02 Nov 2010, Bogdan wrote:
[RE: Russell Jones]
"US Constitutional rights do not apply to citizens of other countries. How difficult is this to understand?"
May I suggest that you actually read the document and not quote FOX talking points. The right to VOTE is restricted to citizens, but due process under the Constitution laws applies to everyone. If you doubt me, you can easily find out what the Supreme Court has had to say about the rights of the defendants in Guantanamo.
Our Constitution does not apply to French people in France, but does apply to them [and people of every other country] when they are in the US. If you think it should be any different, then you would love Shariah, as in Islamic countries that use it the foreigner is always at fault and never wins under local law.
Complain about this comment
162. At 10:10pm on 02 Nov 2010, Russell Jones wrote:
"Imagine...the fire service turn up, and give you a choice: they can put out the fire in the front of your home, or in back. But not both, cos your 'fire insurance doesn't cover it'".
Imagination is not necessary, as it has already happened. In a "Red" state, of course, not in a "Blue" state where namby pamby "socialists" think helping people is a sin.
It appears that an elderly couple forgot to pay the nearby town's fire protection assessment, and when their house started to burn down the FD showed up to protect the neighbors [who had paid] but stood around and watched their house burn down.
Americans are neighborly, and some of the neighbors offered to pay but the mayor told the firemen to NOT help. Guess which party the mayor belongs to?
This happened in in Ky or TN, good ole Red states. Welcome to the GOP/FOX/TEA/Palin Party's "Real" America. Or maybe they were just extreme libertarians.
Complain about this comment
170. At 11:52pm on 02 Nov 2010, JMM wrote:
10. At 05:52am on 02 Nov 2010, KScurmudgeon wrote, as usual,
common sense.
If more liberals were like me and more conservatives were like KScurmudgeon, then we would argue, consider the public weal and find the best compromise for the good of the majority.
Unfortunately the temperature is heated by vested interests, corporatists, and emotive, but non-thinking, non compromising persons of left and right.
--------------------------
Thank you for your kindness.
What happened between 1789 and 1802 in the USA?
The same men who in the revolution and constitutional period were statesmen dedicated to the common weal, and earned the respect of the world's posterity for their enlightened wisdom, broke into squabbling partisans - labored to construct parties of regional interests - and attacked each other in secret as well as public ways - did not serving the whole nation even while in high office, but instead promoted and cultivated division and animosity.
Why? What forces, events, personalities were at work in the new nation and its leaders?
I think this is worth careful study - it should be studied and understood by every advocate of democratic government.
KSc
Complain about this comment
JMM, (#176. At 01:23am on 03 Nov 2010)
"... It appears that an elderly couple forgot to pay the nearby town's fire protection assessment, and when their house started to burn down the FD showed up to protect the neighbors [who had paid] but stood around and watched their house burn down ..."
The fire protection program is an opt-in service offered by a nearby town.
"Cranick's doublewide home is outside city limits. But South Fulton offers fire protection to nearby residents for a fee, and once the fire threatened to spread, the department did protect a neighboring house that had paid."
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/06/news/dd4letitburn1100610.txt
Forgot to pay?
"...'I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong,' said Gene Cranick ...
'Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't,' Mayor David Crocker said ..."
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
Complain about this comment
169. At 11:41pm on 02 Nov 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
" Human society is not mathematics where every problem has only one correct solution"...
I will agree with your premise and disagree with your argument this far - there is a rule that has mathematical certainty and works to a mathematical conclusion: Everyone should produce at least what they consume - if they produce more they accrue wealth and credit; if they produce less (or consume more) they accrue poverty and debt.
Value added is contribution
This operates on all levels of society, but is sometimes forgotten to the loss of the society as a whole.
I have no trouble with this kind of honesty. I guess maybe that makes me a conservative.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
The cruelest cuts will come when the Republican House defunds The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In 2012 (I believe) several Federal funding bills for non-employer health coverage are due. When the bills are not available for the President’s signature, people who were expecting coverage to become available will be disappointed. I may be off on the schedule, but I recall either 2011 or 2012 in my reading.
Has anyone an update to this?
Complain about this comment
The vote is a verdict on the entire government. The concensus is that it has failed very badly. Ineffective, corrupt, incompetent are the words that come to mind to describe how the United States government has been run for these past few decades as I and I think many other Americans see it. We are in a mood for a radical change. But a change to what? To people who are not in the pockets of anyone, who are not owned by large corporations, foreign governments, banks, insurance companies, wall street financeers, or "disenfranchized" minorities. The entire group of incumbents stinks and should be thrown out lock stock and barrel. Obama and his crowd have proven to be no better and hardly much different from the previous crowd. Their promises proved empty. This could be a point of radical departure but heading towards what?
Complain about this comment
RomeStu, (#164. At 10:56pm on 02 Nov 2010)
“... From each according to their means, for all according to their needs.
Sounds like something Jesus might have said, doesn't it.”
That particular expression was popularized by Karl Marx: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
Complain about this comment
181. At 02:54am on 03 Nov 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote: an excellent observation of our current state of affairs.
Do we know how to make anything work? How long will we have to beat on the existing system before it will break up and we can start the rebuild?
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
RomeStue wrote
"From each according to their means, for all according to their needs"
Karl Marx said this, not Jesus. This statement portrays everything that is wrong with his philosophy. Likening one to another is to show that one has only read (if at all) Bible on the surface and does not understand the message.
JMM wrote "May I suggest that you actually read the document and not quote FOX talking points. The right to VOTE is restricted to citizens, but due process under the Constitution laws applies to everyone. "
First, anytime you make assumptions about anyone's comments you show your own bias. In addition you discourage people from debating you. Not because you have stronger arguments but because you sound like a stubborn jerk. Second, the text of the fifth amendment is easily googled but here it is. Make your own conclusions:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
Complain about this comment
182 and 184.
Stu was having a bit of fun there, and you seem to have missed it.
It was a sharp, witty, and funny comment.
Complain about this comment
"It was a sharp, witty, and funny comment"
Not that funny, more juvenile and very on the surface, all the while still indicating redistributionist tendencies in the main post.
Complain about this comment
To Bogdan #186
Are you accusing Jesus of having redistributionist tendencies?
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#185. At 2:13pm on 03 Nov 2010)
“... Stu was having a bit of fun there, and you seem to have missed it.
It was a sharp, witty, and funny comment.”
I’m sure there are some who would agree with you.
Complain about this comment
186. Bogdan
Well, it still ain't working.
There is a certain slice of people who just do not get English humour, and this is an example of it.
You might want to check the calibration, or at least reset the breaker.
Complain about this comment
184. At 1:48pm on 03 Nov 2010, Bogdan wrote: "First, anytime you make assumptions about anyone's comments you show your own bias. In addition you discourage people from debating you. Not because you have stronger arguments but because you sound like a stubborn jerk."
You are extremely impolite and resort freely to adhominems, and you do not even appear to understand that that is not the way to "debate."
"No person shall be held..." You apparently think that people who are not citizens are not people. "No person" means no citizen and also no foreigner. There is nothing to debate.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS