Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html en-gb 30 Fri 01 Aug 2014 14:32:26 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=99#comment189 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. Sat 06 Nov 2010 23:07:43 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=98#comment188 186. BogdanWell, 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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 23:41:58 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=98#comment187 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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 21:11:35 GMT+1 _marko http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=97#comment186 To Bogdan #186Are you accusing Jesus of having redistributionist tendencies? Wed 03 Nov 2010 19:35:20 GMT+1 Bogdan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=97#comment185 "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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 14:30:01 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=96#comment184 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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 14:13:40 GMT+1 Bogdan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=96#comment183 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] Wed 03 Nov 2010 13:48:54 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=95#comment182 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 Wed 03 Nov 2010 03:18:24 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=95#comment181 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 Wed 03 Nov 2010 03:02:09 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=94#comment180 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? Wed 03 Nov 2010 02:54:26 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=94#comment179 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? Wed 03 Nov 2010 02:49:01 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=93#comment178 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 contributionThis 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 Wed 03 Nov 2010 02:11:26 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=93#comment177 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.txtForgot 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 Wed 03 Nov 2010 02:08:46 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=92#comment176 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 Wed 03 Nov 2010 02:00:32 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=92#comment175 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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 01:23:05 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=91#comment174 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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 01:07:00 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=91#comment173 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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 00:58:54 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=90#comment172 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 Wed 03 Nov 2010 00:45:47 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=90#comment171 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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 00:14:06 GMT+1 Scott0962 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=89#comment170 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. Wed 03 Nov 2010 00:12:40 GMT+1 McJakome http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=88#comment169 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 23:52:03 GMT+1 Scott0962 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=88#comment168 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 23:41:28 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=87#comment167 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? Tue 02 Nov 2010 23:37:25 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=87#comment166 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 23:20:43 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=86#comment165 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 23:16:05 GMT+1 Chryses http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=86#comment164 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 22:58:29 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=85#comment163 163 lucyThat 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 22:56:13 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=85#comment162 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... Tue 02 Nov 2010 22:48:10 GMT+1 Russell Jones http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=84#comment161 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.  Tue 02 Nov 2010 22:10:06 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=84#comment160 RE 154I'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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 21:41:51 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=83#comment159 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 21:14:17 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=83#comment158 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 Tue 02 Nov 2010 21:13:07 GMT+1 seanthenoisemaker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=82#comment157 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." Tue 02 Nov 2010 21:00:36 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=82#comment156 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? Tue 02 Nov 2010 20:44:48 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=81#comment155 This post has been Removed Tue 02 Nov 2010 20:39:46 GMT+1 seanthenoisemaker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=81#comment154 Except those countries that practise a welfare state and socialised health care. Tue 02 Nov 2010 20:26:31 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=80#comment153 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... Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:41:35 GMT+1 TeaPartyBrit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=80#comment152 #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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:40:03 GMT+1 jrkau http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=79#comment151 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:34:06 GMT+1 RomeStu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=78#comment150 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 terrorists2) tax cuts for the richest 5%3) aid packages for AIDS-affected developping nations that came with a stipulation that abstinance be promoted over condoms4) is stupidanti-Obama rhetoric1) reversing said tax cuts2) trying to provide decent healthcare for all citizens3) is a commie / muslim / not American etc etc etc4) is intelligent5) is "elite" (which is ironic considering his background and that his predecessor was from an old-money establishment family)Just sayin'! Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:29:21 GMT+1 bigsammyb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=78#comment149 "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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:24:35 GMT+1 Dan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=77#comment148 "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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:22:55 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=77#comment147 Re 136Innocent 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 144I 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:22:25 GMT+1 bigsammyb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=76#comment146 "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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:18:09 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=76#comment145 ref #142Scott0962 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:14:45 GMT+1 Leicesterlad http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=75#comment144 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:03:15 GMT+1 Bogdan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=75#comment143 Re 138Granted 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:02:48 GMT+1 _marko http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=74#comment142 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 19:01:19 GMT+1 Scott0962 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=74#comment141 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:53:39 GMT+1 Dan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=73#comment140 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 yearswill 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:51:11 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=73#comment139 marko 124 wrote:To defeat the US president is to be patriotic andto 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... Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:46:05 GMT+1 seanthenoisemaker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=72#comment138 As an aside, who here thinks Christine O'Donnell, idiot though she is, is a stone cold hotty! Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:44:47 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=72#comment137 Re 133The 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:42:48 GMT+1 Scott0962 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=71#comment136 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:42:22 GMT+1 Bogdan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=71#comment135 ref 122 Russel JonesOh and most importantly "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is NOT in the US constitution. Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:39:25 GMT+1 Curt Carpenter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=70#comment134 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?" Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:38:20 GMT+1 seanthenoisemaker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=70#comment133 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:36:07 GMT+1 Bogdan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=69#comment132 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? Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:32:28 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=68#comment131 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:23:36 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=68#comment130 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:11:10 GMT+1 Jacques Bouvier http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=67#comment129 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! Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:05:50 GMT+1 Bogdan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=67#comment128 _marko wrote "So just to be clear:To defeat the US president is to be patriotic andto support the US president is to be patriotic. "Not everything is so black and white like you thought, right? Only sheep follow blindly... Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:02:55 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=66#comment127 124. At 5:49pm on 02 Nov 2010, _marko wrote:So just to be clear:To defeat the US president is to be patriotic andto 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? Tue 02 Nov 2010 18:01:12 GMT+1 Russell Jones http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=66#comment126 122. #OldloadrTrue. 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? Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:59:03 GMT+1 jrkau http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=65#comment125 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:56:56 GMT+1 Philly-Mom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=65#comment124 This post has been Removed Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:51:45 GMT+1 _marko http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=64#comment123 To Oldloader #122So just to be clear:To defeat the US president is to be patriotic andto support the US president is to be patriotic. Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:49:29 GMT+1 wildwilly http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=64#comment122 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! Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:39:13 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=63#comment121 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:22:26 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=63#comment120 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... Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:17:21 GMT+1 Russell Jones http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=62#comment119 118. #American Sport FanI'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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:16:52 GMT+1 Philly-Mom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=62#comment118 Quick Non SequiturI 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.] Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:05:19 GMT+1 American Sport Fan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=61#comment117 Re 93I 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 17:01:31 GMT+1 Kit Green http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=61#comment116 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:55:10 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=60#comment115 "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. ;) Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:53:38 GMT+1 Russell Jones http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=60#comment114 104. #Oldloadr1: 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:51:49 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=59#comment113 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! Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:49:14 GMT+1 dmfarooq http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=58#comment112 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 . Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:48:28 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=58#comment111 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:46:13 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=57#comment110 "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!] Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:44:51 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=57#comment109 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? Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:40:24 GMT+1 Russell Jones http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=56#comment108 41. #TeaPartyBritI 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". Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:38:30 GMT+1 busker999 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=56#comment107 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:30:54 GMT+1 Kieran http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=55#comment106 [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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:26:30 GMT+1 Philly-Mom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=55#comment105 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:25:58 GMT+1 AndreaNY http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=54#comment104 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 Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:24:34 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=54#comment103 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? Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:22:36 GMT+1 Bogdan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=53#comment102 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:22:31 GMT+1 seanthenoisemaker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=53#comment101 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:20:50 GMT+1 Russell Jones http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=52#comment100 82. #OldloadrAs 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:18:52 GMT+1 AmeriCorps http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=52#comment99 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] Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:16:20 GMT+1 Philly-Mom http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=51#comment98 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:14:45 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=51#comment97 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:12:37 GMT+1 Russell Jones http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=50#comment96 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:05:37 GMT+1 ib42 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=50#comment95 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! Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:04:15 GMT+1 kevooo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=49#comment94 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 16:04:05 GMT+1 bigsammyb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=48#comment93 This post has been Removed Tue 02 Nov 2010 15:55:07 GMT+1 Oldloadr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=48#comment92 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! Tue 02 Nov 2010 15:54:05 GMT+1 Bogdan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=47#comment91 "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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 15:52:31 GMT+1 kingram70 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/11/will_the_mid-term_elections_sp.html?page=47#comment90 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. Tue 02 Nov 2010 15:49:50 GMT+1