Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Buccaneer]

LOL.

[Arles]

So out of $130,000,000 raised, we're concerned about the roughly $300,000 from "oil company employees"? Really?
It was a big deal going into the 2004 election that W got $25,000 in personal donations from people that worked for Halliburton. Seems that if people are going to criticize W for that, you'd atleast have to look at Obama's situation too, right?

[QuikSand]

Nice spin. Gotcha! for misleading people. Great. Look, he brought this on himself. No one told him to make a big deal about not taking money from oil companies. That he would go out of his way to state as a "fact" something that, by law, NO candidate can do, smacks of "politics as usual." That's the issue.

And then there's the lobbyist thing...again, making a point to tell people he doesn't take money from lobbyists - but hey, if their spouses want to give me money (wink, wink), then that's A-OK!

I don't care that he's doing it, and I don't care how little money it is. I care that his campaign has positioned him as an outsider and all I hear from him is how we need a "new voice" and "change" and "I'm different from Washington people," and then he pulls this kind of shit. That's his campaign's overriding mantra, and he's demonstrating that he's not any different. I know he's a politician, but you can't tell me he's not campaigning as if he's not the usual candidate.

And BTW, I have no agenda here. I'm likely not voting for any of the 3 remaining candidates. I'm just calling it like I see it.

I need more time to digest this whole argument before reaching a conclusion on it. I know most people will just dismiss it or embrace it wholesale based on their already-established position... but I'm doing my best to be open-minded in this election, and I *claim* to really dislike hypocrisy. I don't yet know where to place this on that particular scale.

It's possible, well conceivable, that a person has actually had his opinion altered as a result of a political thread at FOFC. No doubt a first, if true.

[Toddzilla]

It was a big deal going into the 2004 election that W got $25,000 in personal donations from people that worked for Halliburton. Seems that if people are going to criticize W for that, you'd atleast have to look at Obama's situation too, right?...and look how well that worked out for both Bush and Haliburton! ;)

[Butter]

Lot of bored Republicans in this thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, the Republican primary is kind of over ;).

[Ksyrup]

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I think we should be consistent in our treatment of Obama like the others. This is where all the "free ride" stuff comes from. Obama's getting off because he's not really taking on a specific policy or policies to define him as a candidate. The overriding idea is that he is worth electing because he somehow brings a fresh, outsider perspective to the WH on all issues that's different than a third term of Bush (McCain) or Clinton would be. And yet he's campaigning with all the usual tricks of the trade.

Take Clinton's "experience" mantra. That's what she's defining herself as - ready from "Day One" to take action. I don't see this as any different than Obama's mantra of "change." And even if you throw out the Bosnia under fire stuff, her "experience" has rightfully come under scrutiny. The claim to have 35 years of experience, which dates back to when she got out of school, the fact that her calendars show that when major issues were going on, she was off doing non-substantive stuff, etc. (I love the one about when the WTC was attacked the first time, she went to a museum and caught a Broadway play that day while Bill was off doing substantive stuff). If she gets called out for that, what's the equivalent for Obama? It's scrutinizing just how much "change" from "politics as usual" we'd get if he was elected.

[GrantDawg]

It's possible, well conceivable, that a person has actually had his opinion altered as a result of a political thread at FOFC. No doubt a first, if true.


Not really. I have had my changed by pol threads here before. Too often you only hear one side of position (or even two extremly slanted sides), that is nice in some of these threads you read a more moderated view (once you chuck out the complete zealots). There have been many times I've read here a true arguement (not a processed sound-bite) that did make sense and changed my view on something. You, for one, are very good at pointing to something I've never thought of or read before.

Now, I could make a list of people that could stop posting in these threads to make them much better, but I'll refrain.

[miked]

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I think we should be consistent in our treatment of Obama like the others. This is where all the "free ride" stuff comes from. Obama's getting off because he's not really taking on a specific policy or policies to define him as a candidate. The overriding idea is that he is worth electing because he somehow brings a fresh, outsider perspective to the WH on all issues that's different than a third term of Bush (McCain) or Clinton would be. And yet he's campaigning with all the usual tricks of the trade.

Take Clinton's "experience" mantra. That's what she's defining herself as - ready from "Day One" to take action. I don't see this as any different than Obama's mantra of "change." And even if you throw out the Bosnia under fire stuff, her "experience" has rightfully come under scrutiny. The claim to have 35 years of experience, which dates back to when she got out of school, the fact that her calendars show that when major issues were going on, she was off doing non-substantive stuff, etc. (I love the one about when the WTC was attacked the first time, she went to a museum and caught a Broadway play that day while Bill was off doing substantive stuff). If she gets called out for that, what's the equivalent for Obama? It's scrutinizing just how much "change" from "politics as usual" we'd get if he was elected.

I don't really think she's gotten hit hard on her claims of experience. I have not yet heard one question as to why her time as a politician's wife counts as experience? You know, that Obama has more time as an actual elected official than she does. Maybe I'm missing it, but I have yet to see her have to defend her experience bit.

[Ksyrup]

Admittedly, it wouldn't have been as much of an issue yet if the Bosnia thing hadn't come out, but since then, I've been hearing much more about it.

[ISiddiqui]

I have not yet heard one question as to why her time as a politician's wife counts as experience?

Really? As Ksyrup points out, after the Bosnia mess, it was all over the place. And of course it was mocked mercilessly on shows like the Daily Show and Letterman for months now.

[Young Drachma]

Really? As Ksyrup points out, after the Bosnia mess, it was all over the place. And of course it was mocked mercilessly on shows like the Daily Show and Letterman for months now.

Not really. No one ever addressed it directly. It's been implied during the whole race. But NO ONE has ever explicitly said "how is being First Lady really experience?" And even when they debunk it (i.e. Hillary didn't even have a security clearance and never carried a portfolio on her abroad visits) the myth that she's got all of this "experience" keeps just getting accepted.

[st.cronin]

But NO ONE has ever explicitly said "how is being First Lady really experience?"

If you're talking about her time as First Lady of the USA, I have seen that very question addressed quite a few times. If you're talking about her time as First Lady of Arkansas, that hasn't really been looked at too closely at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/mccain-going-public/


<SMALL class=post-date id=day_4>April 4, 2008, 1:06 pm</SMALL> McCain Going Public?

By Tobin Harshaw (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/tharshaw/)
Tags: Campaign Finance (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/campaign-finance), Elections 2008 (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/elections-2008), John McCain (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/john-mccain)

<!-- end post-info -->Money for nothin’? “In another sign that John McCain is moving toward accepting public financing this fall, the Republican’s campaign is returning about $3 million in checks to contributors (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/04/mccain_returns_3m_in_checks_as_he_considers_public_funding/) who have given money for his general election campaign, funds he could not use if he opts into the public system,” the Boston Globe reports. “McCain’s campaign, in letters to contributors, is asking supporters to write new checks to a special fund created to help the Arizona senator pay legal and accounting expenses related to compliance with the public funding system.”

Eric Kleefeld at TPM Election Central finds a bit of glee in the fact that “the man known for campaign finance reform is asking his contributors to write checks to a new fund (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/mccain_returning_general_elect.php) &shy; a fund set up to help him pay legal fees and other expenses in his dealings with the public finance system.”

“Frankly, he’d save the taxpayers $42 million if he just quit the race now (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/04/mccain_leaning_toward_public_funding/),” adds a skeptical James Joyner at Outside the Beltway. “Barack Obama’s probably got $84 million laying around the office in checks he hasn’t bothered to deposit. McCain will likely be at a financial disadvantage either way but it would be political suicide to unilaterally disarm. Even with his problems with the base, he’ll be able to raise a couple hundred million if the alternative is Obama; more than that if Clinton somehow gets the nomination.”

The interesting part of this is that Obama has said in the past that he would take federal matching funds if his opponent did. That would REALLY mess up Obama's advantage if he followed through (and that's probably why McCain is flirting with going public... Obama would look like "politics as usual" guy if he went back on his word).

[Vegas Vic]

Lot of bored Republicans in this thread.

Actually, I'm a registered Democrat who will be voting for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time.

[Ksyrup]

I'm a registered Republican who will probably not be voting.

[path12]

Actually, I'm a registered Democrat who will be voting for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time.

Really? What exactly about the past eight years has caused you to make the switch to the Republican party? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

[Toddzilla]

I need more time to digest this whole argument before reaching a conclusion on it. I know most people will just dismiss it or embrace it wholesale based on their already-established position... but I'm doing my best to be open-minded in this election, and I *claim* to really dislike hypocrisy. I don't yet know where to place this on that particular scale.

It's possible, well conceivable, that a person has actually had his opinion altered as a result of a political thread at FOFC. No doubt a first, if true.FWIW, CamEdwards has changed my mind on a couple of things - nothing earth-shattering, but he has that effect on me ;)

[Ksyrup]

nothing earth-shattering

Cam has that effect on his wife, too. :D :p

[albionmoonlight]

This article seems to touch on some of what Ksyrup is saying about Obama and the "hope" based campaign.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200804u/obamas-glamour?ca=PeSD3QEbUlsoAltOS8PNMrUXziWC2eHtIH%2FuozJmsTs%3D

[Butter]

Well, the Republican primary is kind of over ;).

You make a good point.

My mind has been changed!

[Vegas Vic]

Really? What exactly about the past eight years has caused you to make the switch to the Republican party? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

I voted for Clinton/Gore twice, and I don't regret it. They won in 1992 and 1996 running on the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) platform, which stated the the modern democratic party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. As "New Democrats", Clinton/Gore ran and governed as centrists in many areas like welfare reform, free trade, fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Tony Blair adopted a similar platform when he ran under the mantra of "New Labour", ousting John Major in Great Britain,

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, but I was becoming increasingly concerned about their move to the left and populist class warfare rhetoric. However, Bush was not a viable alternative, so I voted Democrat, although I would have seriously considered voting Republican otherwise.

In 2008, both Obama and Clinton's stand on the issues are about as far left as I can recall in my lifetime. I know this hasn't been fleshed out yet, but it will be during the general campaign when the candidates actually have to take stands on critical issues and the voting public begins to pay attention. So, I've already made up my mind, and I'll be voting for McCain. The Democratic party as I knew it in the 1990's is now controlled by the far left wing, and it has no appeal to me.

[path12]

In 2008, both Obama and Clinton's stand on the issues are about as far left as I can recall in my lifetime. I know this hasn't been fleshed out yet, but it will be during the general campaign when the candidates actually have to take stands on critical issues and the voting public begins to pay attention. So, I've already made up my mind, and I'll be voting for McCain. The Democratic party as I knew it in the 1990's is now controlled by the far left wing, and it has no appeal to me.

Thanks for the reply. It's interesting how people can see things so differently -- my feeling is that the left-right spectrum has steadily moved rightward since 1980 or so, so that positions that are now considered "far-left" were much more centrist positions back then.

I don't have time to find the link right now, but there was a recent Economist article that talked about the political differences between Europe and ourselves, and there was one thing in particular about the English Conservative party having positions that are now to the left of the American Democratic party.

Personally, I don't think that finding a way out of the Iraq mess, proposing a universal healthcare system, reinstating some of the tax cuts on the very wealthy in order to help both balance the budget, reverse some of the widening income disparity and repair some of the social services net that has been slashed over the past 20 years are far left positions at all. But of course that's just my two cents......and I'm not even getting into what has happened at the Department of Justice, etc.

[st.cronin]

Thanks for the reply. It's interesting how people can see things so differently -- my feeling is that the left-right spectrum has steadily moved rightward since 1980 or so, so that positions that are now considered "far-left" were much more centrist positions back then.

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

[path12]

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

I don't know about that. The Supreme Court certainly seems to have continued it's rightward drift, and I haven't sensed a great lessening of the evangelical right since Bush 41 (a small lessening over the past year or two, but that's about it).

The country does seem to have become much more polarized since Bush 41 though.

[CamEdwards]

Cam has that effect on his wife, too. :D :p

:mad: Dammit, now you need to ask a FTB question that would allow me to refute you. :p

[chesapeake]

In 2008, both Obama and Clinton's stand on the issues are about as far left as I can recall in my lifetime. I know this hasn't been fleshed out yet, but it will be during the general campaign when the candidates actually have to take stands on critical issues and the voting public begins to pay attention. So, I've already made up my mind, and I'll be voting for McCain. The Democratic party as I knew it in the 1990's is now controlled by the far left wing, and it has no appeal to me.

A healthy chunk of this perception is based on the fact that the candidates are still running in the primary, so the issues they are talking about are targeted directly at the spectrum that will be voting. Normally, this is all out of the way by now, and the presumptive nominee is already redrafting his/her message to appeal to the middle.

When the party finally has a nominee, they'll run back to the middle for the most part. But Path makes a good point. The electorate is shifting some to the left, in no small part as a reaction to this Administration forcing things so far the other way.

[Autumn]

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

If you mean Bill Clinton, I don't think that's much of a measure of leftward trend. Bill Clinton was a very centrist Democrat, and spent most of his term pissing off progressives. I'm not sure that i agree with your assessment, but it would suggest a centrist trend, not a leftward one.

[st.cronin]

If you mean Bill Clinton, I don't think that's much of a measure of leftward trend. Bill Clinton was a very centrist Democrat, and spent most of his term pissing off progressives. I'm not sure that i agree with your assessment, but it would suggest a centrist trend, not a leftward one.

Left and right are relative terms. If you start out right of center, and move left, that is both a centrist drift, and a leftist drift.

[Autumn]

They are both relative terms, and marks along a spectrum that represent real opinions about real issues. The position on the spectrum matters just as much as the direction of movement. You could say an obese person lost weight if they went from 455 pounds to 450 pounds, but to suggest that they're "becoming thinner" would not convey I think the truth of the matter.

My point only being that if we forget that Clinton was an extremely centrist Democrat, and he instead becomes the new standard of "the left" we'll have lost a lot of accuracy in our measurements of who is 'moving left' or 'moving right'.

[Buccaneer]

"Very" centrist? "Extremely" centrist? Hypebolic words for a president that was all over the spectrum, from far-left to right-of-center.

[Vegas Vic]

"Very" centrist? "Extremely" centrist? Hypebolic words for a president that was all over the spectrum, from far-left to right-of-center.

I'm curious, Bucc. What policies did Clinton enact during his presidency that you would consider "far left"?

[Buccaneer]

I don't know about that. The Supreme Court certainly seems to have continued it's rightward drift, and I haven't sensed a great lessening of the evangelical right since Bush 41 (a small lessening over the past year or two, but that's about it).

The country does seem to have become much more polarized since Bush 41 though.

We really don't know about the SC yet. Based on confirmation hearings, that would probably be correct, but the jury is out regarding the body of actual rulings.

Since Bush41? He was no close friend of the evangelical right. But the so-called religious right is fracture, always have been. So I'm not what great generalization you are making.

More polarized? Yes. And will continue to be more polarized (it makes great press). But with that polarization, come a significant rise of independents and libertarians.

You have been around long enough, path, to know that American politics have and will always be used as a divisive yet ever-changing force. The next 4 years will be different than the previous 4, even with McCain. But many things will remain the same. Besides, it looks bad on you to act surprise that a (D) would even possible consider voting (R) based on the past 8 years. Vegas Vic gets it (in regards to actually thinking instead of going along with the red/blue crap). As one who did not support (R) the past 8 years, I'll be voting for McCain simply because of what I feel is the critical necessity of having a split Executive/Legislature.

[Buccaneer]

I'm curious, Bucc. What policies did Clinton enact during his presidency that you would consider "far left"?

I believe he tried the first two years to enact a few such policies but then a (R) Congress forced him to move centric. Besides, terms like "far left" and "far right" are laughable for we have not had such things in the country. I throw them out once in a while jokingly but mainly to counterbalance those that actually believe such positions exist.

But I was thinking more along the lines of speeches, rhetoric and the typical demonizing political opponents. Perhaps Hillary was worse at it but I could not and still do not separate the two.

However, you asked for specifics and I would have to dig up something from a few years back that placed certain people (politicos and otherwise) along the red/blue spectrum. In that article, Clinton was placed from a 2-6 (depending on the time of day) on a 1-10 point scale.

[Vegas Vic]

I believe he tried the first two years to enact a few such policies but then a (R) Congress forced him to move centric.

Yeah, I know it's a common opinion that the "republican congress" should get credit for things like the budget surplus of 1998, but The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (passed by a democratic congress) is now credited by CBO as one of the main factors in the economic growth and later budget surplus in 1998. Ironically, even though many people have the perception that the republican congress was the reason for the budget surplus of 1998, the CBO data shows that the combined fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 105th Republican Congresses added $11,000,000,000 more to the deficit than it cut in Fiscal Year 1998.

"There's no question that the impact of bringing the deficit down through the 1993 budget bill set in place a series of events--a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way--which has led us to where we are." Alan Greenspan - In testimony before the House Budget Committee, March 4, 1998.

[BishopMVP]

Not sure if this was posted, but let's focus on the important issues here - such as how you can possibly vote for a man who bowls a 37? Or how you even bowl a 37. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/30/obama-with-bowls-with-casey-in-pennsylvania/

[Buccaneer]

I wasn't even thinking about the budget. I was thinking more along the lines of socialistic ideas, social engineering and expansions of federal powers at the expense of private entities and properties,

[Buccaneer]

But it's Friday, long week. Got to start doing the yard thing tomorrow.

[Ksyrup]

Not sure if this was posted, but let's focus on the important issues here - such as how you can possibly vote for a man who bowls a 37? Or how you even bowl a 37. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/30/obama-with-bowls-with-casey-in-pennsylvania/

No joke, our 3-year old bowled a 54 a couple of months ago.

[Buccaneer]

Vegas Vic, one of the authors that I read is Calebresi, founder of the Federalist Society, a somewhat libertarian organization that exposes and chides liberal judicialness (is that a word?). I recall something that I've read that looks back on the actual rulings of Clinton's judicial appointments in terms of Constitutionaliity. It wasn't pretty.

[Vegas Vic]

Vegas Vic, one of the authors that I read is Calebresi, founder of the Federalist Society, a somewhat libertarian organization that exposes and chides liberal judicialness (is that a word?). I recall something that I've read that looks back on the actual rulings of Clinton's judicial appointments in terms of Constitutionaliity. It wasn't pretty.

I think that's a valid point, Bucc. There's no question that both of Clinton's Supreme Court appointees -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- have been on the liberal side of virtually every court decision since their appointments.

[path12]

We really don't know about the SC yet. Based on confirmation hearings, that would probably be correct, but the jury is out regarding the body of actual rulings.

Maybe so, but I don't think there's much debate that both Alito and Roberts will hew much closer to a Scalia/Thomas viewpoint than a Ginsberg/Breyer one.

You have been around long enough, path, to know that American politics have and will always be used as a divisive yet ever-changing force. The next 4 years will be different than the previous 4, even with McCain. But many things will remain the same. Besides, it looks bad on you to act surprise that a (D) would even possible consider voting (R) based on the past 8 years. Vegas Vic gets it (in regards to actually thinking instead of going along with the red/blue crap). As one who did not support (R) the past 8 years, I'll be voting for McCain simply because of what I feel is the critical necessity of having a split Executive/Legislature.

I think you simplify my viewpoint, and for the record, I did not vote for Clinton either time, nor for Gore in 2000.

This is not about the "typical red/blue crap". This is about an administration that has been blatent in its disregard of the rule of law in favor of power, and as a libertarian I'm surprised you would even think of supporting the party that has grown government to a size never seen before. The irony is that as they have done this, they have also repeatedly boasted about how big government is bad -- and then gone and proved that boast to be true.

I have no great respect for politics as a whole, and certainly don't believe it is going to solve all of our problems, nor should it. But I do not believe in a government that spreads fear instead of hope, goes against the principles of honor that made this country what it is (via torture, cancellation of habeus corpus, etc), and besmirches our Constitution. Not one bit. We are less of a country because of the past eight years of this administration, and I think that is a sad thing.

[Ksyrup]

Not sure if this was posted, but let's focus on the important issues here - such as how you can possibly vote for a man who bowls a 37? Or how you even bowl a 37. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/30/obama-with-bowls-with-casey-in-pennsylvania/

One of the other boards I post at regularly is a music board based in Chicago. So as you can imagine, not only is the board almost entirely liberal, but the vast majority of them are huge Obama supporters. So I posted this info over there as an obvious joke, and this was the first response:

he only bowled 7 frames, so actually he was on pace to bowl 53... and as I understand it he stopped when he got a spare, presumably after 7 frames, so he likely would have broken 60, maybe even 70, which, while it still sucks, isn't too horrible for a non-bowler without any practice.

LOL at a serious response to this!

[flere-imsaho]

Hey, bowling is serious business! ;)

[flere-imsaho]

I think the country drifted right during the 80's, but since Bush 41 took the reigns the drift has been slowly left. Bush 43 talks like a conservative, but pretty much everything he has done and advocated is right in line with Clinton's policies.

Really? After 1994, Clinton was a pretty laissez-faire President. Bush has been very meddling & hands-on (in the context of fighting with Congress). Their approach to military intervention is pretty different, though I suppose you could argue that 9/11 "changed everything". Their budget priorities (& sizes) are radically different. SC & federal bench nominations are also considerably different.

I don't want to sound snarky, as I'm honestly interested - where are the two in line with each other?

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, but I think we should be consistent in our treatment of Obama like the others. This is where all the "free ride" stuff comes from.

There are two problems with this:

1. Everyone views every candidate through a particular lens, based on their own impressions of them. For instance, while you think Obama's getting a "free ride", I have, at the same time, been trying to point out the various areas where McCain has been getting a free ride. Consistency and objectivity would be great, but since everyone has their own preconceived notions (even if they're unaware of them), these things are very hard to come by.

2. The media, which whether we like it or not influences us greatly, likes to pigeonhole candidates. Obama is the "inexperienced" candidate of "change". Clinton is the "truth-challenged" "democratic machine" candidate. McCain is either a "maverick" or "Bush's 3rd term". This stuff all feeds into our preconceived notions.


I have to say, though, if anyone's getting a free ride, it's McCain. Ever since Romney dropped out, almost all of the attention has focused on the Democrats, and increasingly in digging up and nitpicking all their faults. I mean, here's a guy who doesn't understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni terrorists. Surely that's at least as relevant, if not more, than campaign donations, but it certainly didn't get equal time either in the media, or even amongst us.

I don't care that he's doing it, and I don't care how little money it is. I care that his campaign has positioned him as an outsider and all I hear from him is how we need a "new voice" and "change" and "I'm different from Washington people," and then he pulls this kind of shit.

As far as I can tell, the crux of the matter is this quote from factcheck.org:

When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.


Basically I'd disagree with factcheck.org that this is "a distinction without very much of a practical difference". One of the key problems with PACs is that they allow large donors (individuals or other entities) to give a huge amount to a candidate, but do so legally by distributing their contributions through various PACs.

Additionally, the argument about individual donors representing corporations is spurious. No campaign has the resources or manpower to check each donation for the donator's employer (or their spouse's employer). Watchdog organizations like factcheck.org do (although in this instance their data came from OpenSecrets.org), and the results are always invariably used by opposition partisans.

The idea that any campaign does this work on individual donations to the end of tallying them up so they can say "well, Company X gave $368,000 in total, so let's be nice to them" is risible. However, it's very well within the realm of possibility that the head of Company X would take aside a candidate and let them know that they'll be contributing $1 million through various PACs and individual donations.

I think the real problem here is that the Obama campaign is drawing a fundraising realities distinction that is simply lost on most Americans.

One is either going to:

A. Trust in Obama's motivations and ignore the details (which can be spun oh so many ways)

or

B. Be skeptical.

[Buccaneer]

as a libertarian I'm surprised you would even think of supporting the party that has grown government to a size never seen before.

I don't support the party or any parties, never have. Do you actually think the federal govt will actually get smaller with a (D) Executive and (D) Congress (or substitute (R)) vs one that is split? If I knew that Congress (at least one of them) would go (R), then I would vote for (D) Obama for Executive. But from what I've read, that is very unlikely. As some have said here, the next president - regardless if (D) or (R) - will love the expanded powers, and Congress will continue to ensure its power to solve every problem by growing the legislations, budgets and bureaucracies. I am on record here opposing many of the expansions of power but for most Americans, the past 8 years were no different than the past 20 or past 40 years in watching the decline of home rule local govts at the expense of the federal powers.

[path12]

I certainly understand the arguments for a divided government, and think there are absolutely times where that isn't a bad thing. But I believe we are in a delicate period of time right now where:

The energy source that is the backbone of our society is for the first time starting to show signs of scarcity, even more so with the rapid industrialization of China.

There is finally a solid scientific consensus that we are entering a period of atmospheric change, which will require new thinking.

The healthcare system is broken, with millions not covered and millions more living on the edge of a major illness or accident wiping them out, especially as we see the job loss numbers steadily creep up.

The problem with a divided government is that it does not lead. It keeps the status quo. I don't think we have time to keep the status quo at this point in our history.

Do I think the Dems have the stones and the leadership ability to actually solve these problems? I'm not terribly optimistic, though I at least see a possibility of leadership with Obama as opposed to the same old partisan ground-scorch approach of Clinton. But I know for a fact that the Repubs policies will not lead us forward, especially based on the stands that McCain has taken so far.

[Buccaneer]

I think that's the key difference, path - what you consider forward progress. There are many evidences that when the federal govt tackles a major problem with good intentions of forward progress, they actually, at best, maintain a marginal level of progress at greatly increased costs. Most often, they make the problems worse at greatly increased costs, necessitating more legislation, deficit spending and bureaucracies. And now you expect things will be different all of a sudden??

You mentioned healthcare. For a majority of Americans, it is not broken. It is expensive and will get more expensive, but we demand better care, better drugs and more instant diagnosis and treatments. If you want care for those uninsured, first find out why they are uninsured and then find an acceptable level of care vs cost. For the rest of us, we still will demand what we have now (and more so as we get older). No way will we want a one-size-fits-all solution that will reduce the level of care but cost just as much.

That's just one example of what will be backwards progress but others are dreaming that it will actually be forward progress. Therefore, why would I want leadership when Washington DC is not smart enough to do many things right but instead, they need to cut expenditures and do things better, smarter and cheaper? I would measure forward progress if they would just think more Constitutionally and libertarianistic. But I don't expect that, and I certainly don't hear that from Obama or Clinton. What I do expect is more individuals, local and regional public and private entities, communities, churches and charity organizations to take much more personal responsibilites in making a difference within their sphere of influences.

[larrymcg421]

I think that's a valid point, Bucc. There's no question that both of Clinton's Supreme Court appointees -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- have been on the liberal side of virtually every court decision since their appointments.

Breyer might be on the liberal side of the hot button social issue cases, but is pretty conservative when it comes to corporate cases.

[Young Drachma]

Mark Penn is stepping down from the Clinton campaign. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/us/politics/06cnd-penn.html?hp)

Mark Penn, the architect of much of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, has been replaced as the campaign’s chief strategist in the wake of revelations that he lobbied on behalf of a trade treaty with Colombia that Mrs. Clinton opposes.

[Raiders Army]

If Clinton can't control her people, how can she be the goddam president? Jesus, these are two "firings" in the past three months of her campaign manager and campaign strategist. These aren't people way down the totem pole from her.

So she can't control her husband, she can't control her campaign, and yet she wants to be the leader of the free world? Better yet, people vote for her?

[JPhillips]

I see it rather differently. Firing Penn is one of the first examples of good judgment I've seen from her campaign. If only it would have happened a year ago.

[Raiders Army]

I see it rather differently. Firing Penn is one of the first examples of good judgment I've seen from her campaign. If only it would have happened a year ago.

Any way you cut it, this being one of the first examples of good judgment at this point in the campaign isn't good either.

[JPhillips]

Mark Penn is the Arizona Cardinals of politics. Why he continues to run high profile Democratic races is a complete mystery to me.

[-apoc-]

He has only been fired in name only he is still on the campaign. I really wish he would have been tossed out on his ass properly.

[Young Drachma]

Mark Penn is the Arizona Cardinals of politics. Why he continues to run high profile Democratic races is a complete mystery to me.

He sure mucked this one up pretty good. Proves that all you have to do is get attached to a "high powered PR firm" and then hype yourself. And of course, make friends and influence people.

[CamEdwards]

My friend Jim had an interesting post today. I recommend reading it from the site as there are a lot of links.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjM2YzY5MTY2NTMyMWZmMzM0OGZkNDNkMDUwOTk3YjQ=


Back in February, the Washington Post said that Barack Obama was starting to "waffle" on public financing, which he had pledged to take if the Republican candidate did so as well. McCain said he was game, but because his fundraising had been going so well, Obama suggested he was starting to have second thoughts.

Well, Obama's not waffling anymore. Now he's more or less coming out and saying that his public pledges meant nothing.

The Post said his previous commitment was "unequivocal."

Now he says, "We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

Obama had the audacity to announce his breaking of his public financing pledge before a $2,300 per head fundraising dinner. Really, when are the members of the press going to call horsepuckey on this?

By a "parallel public financing system," Obama means that he is getting a lot of money from private donors. If this is "public", then every other candidate who has ever run for office has used a "parallel public financing system" too.


Come on, Senator. Don't tell me words don't matter.


And speaking of words mattering, Michelle Obama made one of those statements that makes me say "uh-oh" today.

http://www.charlotte.com/112/story/572303.html


"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."


Step away from my pie, Mrs. Obama.

[Buccaneer]

You mean the Obamas are not libertarians?!?!

[Toddzilla]

And speaking of words mattering, Michelle Obama made one of those statements that makes me say "uh-oh" today.

Step away from my pie, Mrs. Obama.FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

I can see why conservatives hear that and say "uh-oh". I imagine liberals hear it and say "all right" - that's why we want Obama to win.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, but the problem is when you give someone a pie, and they smash it in somebody's face rather than eat it.

[albionmoonlight]

The difference between the two parties right now seems to be (1) what they want to spend the money on, and (2) whether to borrow the money from our grandchildren or tax it out of us.

[CamEdwards]

FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

I can see why conservatives hear that and say "uh-oh". I imagine liberals hear it and say "all right" - that's why we want Obama to win.

Apparently the pie you're already giving up isn't enough though. How much more are you willing to give up?

I'd like to be able to take care of my own children (two of whom were born into a family below poverty level) before the government demands more of my pie on another bloated government program. I mean, take a look at the thread about gov't employees using gov't issued credit cards to buy $13,000 dinners and lingerie. We really need to add more of this kind of bureaucracy considering how well it's working now?

[Buccaneer]

FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

I can see why conservatives hear that and say "uh-oh". I imagine liberals hear it and say "all right" - that's why we want Obama to win.

But that's the key with the federal govt - they will take more of your pie for very little gain and many children currently living in poverty will still be living in poverty without adequate health care. You are much better off giving to local aid groups that can provide basic health care to those in need. But then again, many would just use this as a political tool instead of working at actually making a difference to those around you.

[Buccaneer]

By the way, I will continue to put my money with my mouth is and will be giving a sizable donation this week to both our local Ecumenical Services Ministry and to the Marion House Soup Kitchen, both provides food, necessities and funds for basic health care needs to those individuals and families that are in dire situations. Better to feed them yourselves (esp. if you can volunteer) than to feed the federal bureaucracies.

[albionmoonlight]

The biggest problem I see in terms of cutting government spending (other than the obvious breads and circuses point) is that the parties go in and out of power.

Let's say that Bush had been a fiscal conservative and run balanced budgets. And let's say that Clinton or Obama wins in November. You could argue that all Bush would have done was save money so the Democrats could spend it on their programs. Instead, he spent the money on his programs. Can't say that isn't rational of him.

In contrast, let's say that, instead of trying to increase federal involvement in health care, Obama/Clinton spends their time and energy putting our fiscal house back in order. All that will happen is a Republican will end up spending the money when they get back in power.

Seems like a classic variation on the tragedy of the commons.

[ISiddiqui]

But that's the key with the federal govt - they will take more of your pie for very little gain and many children currently living in poverty will still be living in poverty without adequate health care. You are much better off giving to local aid groups that can provide basic health care to those in need. But then again, many would just use this as a political tool instead of working at actually making a difference to those around you.

When it comes to health care, especially preventative health care, personally I think it'd make far more sense to have the government handle the use of my money to help poor folk rather than "local aid groups". I do at least know that the government will be less likely to discriminate or push their beliefs in giving out benefits at least.

Besides, some local aid groups (like the Salvation Army) are just freaking evil sometimes.

[Raiders Army]

When it comes to health care, especially preventative health care, personally I think it'd make far more sense to have the government handle the use of my money to help poor folk rather than "local aid groups". I do at least know that the government will be less likely to discriminate or push their beliefs in giving out benefits at least.

Besides, some local aid groups (like the Salvation Army) are just freaking evil sometimes.

Does the federal government dole that money out directly to people living in poverty? Or does the federal government dole that money out to other groups to dole it out to people living in poverty? In my mind, the more hands the money passes through the greater a chance that those people will not see a dime.

I've also seen a lot of people live off welfare and they would welcome universal health care. Maybe if the government evaluated families properly, there would be enough money for the real poor people instead of the people living off the government.

[flere-imsaho]

FWIW, I make a pretty good living, and if I have to pay higher premiums so that children living in poverty get better health care, I'll give up some of my pie any day.

++

Apparently the pie you're already giving up isn't enough though. How much more are you willing to give up?

Last I checked, we had some of the lowest, if not the lowest, tax burdens in the developed world.

I mean, take a look at the thread about gov't employees using gov't issued credit cards to buy $13,000 dinners and lingerie. We really need to add more of this kind of bureaucracy considering how well it's working now?

Because most government employees engage in this type of behavior, obviously....

[ISiddiqui]

Does the federal government dole that money out directly to people living in poverty? Or does the federal government dole that money out to other groups to dole it out to people living in poverty? In my mind, the more hands the money passes through the greater a chance that those people will not see a dime.

Depends on the plan, of course. I believe most plans have the government working as a basic level of insurance or helping people get very cheap insurance (rather than just giving $$ to the people) for preventative & catastrophic care.

[Buccaneer]

It's amazing to me that those that have been crying about the "severe loss of liberties" (not to mention deficit spendings) these past 7 years are readily willing to give the federal govt more powers, more expenditures and more blackmail at the expense of states rights. Haven't you seen the results of "nationalized" programs and the various "War on ---" these past 40 years? Now you somehow expect them to do this right???

[JPhillips]

Buc: I'm actually for national healthcare because I think it's the single biggest thing we could do for business. I know HR folks that spends hours every week dealing with healthcare and not their business. Compared to the rest of the world it's a huge competitive disadvantage.

I'll freely admit it can be a disaster, but because it can be fucked up isn't a reason to say it must be fucked up. There are several examples of national healthcare working and the task would be to emulate what works as opposed to what doesn't. Will it be difficult, of course, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to say the current system is the best we can come up with. Currently we spend more per capita and get less than many other countries. Our high end care is the best in the world, but our day to day care is mediocre at best.

Healthcare also won't be much of a drag on states' rights as long as it's done well. Of course I'd easily sacrifice some theoretical states' rights for systems that cost less and work better. We pay for a national healthcare system already it's just that now over thirty percent gets spent n overhead.

[CamEdwards]

++



Last I checked, we had some of the lowest, if not the lowest, tax burdens in the developed world.



Because most government employees engage in this type of behavior, obviously....

Marginal tax rate for most people according to the National Bureau of Economic Research is 40%. Frankly, I don't give a damn how that compares to other countries.

And no, most government employees don't engage in that type of behavior. According to the audit, only 1 in 2 do. As Cartman pointed out:


Nearly half of transactions made in the 2006 fiscal year with government credit or debit cards -- referred to as "purchase cards" -- were improper, the study found, and the audit condemned the government-wide "rate of failure" as "unacceptably high."


Your answer, I'm presuming, would be to further increase the size of government in order to provide stricter scrutiny for the government employees and their use of government issued credit cards?

Sorry for threadjacking, btw. We can still talk about Obama's changing stance on public financing for his campaign. :)

[ISiddiqui]

It's amazing to me that those that have been crying about the "severe loss of liberties" (not to mention deficit spendings) these past 7 years are readily willing to give the federal govt more powers, more expenditures and more blackmail at the expense of states rights. Haven't you seen the results of "nationalized" programs and the various "War on ---" these past 40 years? Now you somehow expect them to do this right???

If you can't see the difference between invading privacy of individuals and having the government help out those who cannot afford health insurance or prevent middle class folk from getting their savings wiped out by a catastrophic medical event, then we can't help you.

And as pointed out, plenty of examples around the world of national healthcare working. Are there craptastic systems? Sure... but that doesn't mean they all are or have to be.

[ISiddiqui]

And no, most government employees don't engage in that type of behavior. According to the audit, only 1 in 2 do. As Cartman pointed out:

I fail to see how "half the transactions" equals "1 in 2" government employees abuse the system. This argument by you, above, is called manipulating numbers... or you didn't notice the transactions part in the article (I'd imagine those who are scamming Uncle Sam are making far, far, far more transactions on their government card than those who are playing by the rules.

[Arles]

If you can't see the difference between invading privacy of individuals and having the government help out those who cannot afford health insurance or prevent middle class folk from getting their savings wiped out by a catastrophic medical event, then we can't help you.
So, you have a middle-aged man paying $200 a month (pre-tax) for good health benefits through his employer for his entire family and he gets to choose his own doctor and specialist for a low copay and high quality of service. Somehow telling that man now that he must pay more in taxes for coverage not as good for his kids is LESS of an invasion than forcing certain people to go through extra inspections when boarding a plane?

According to the US Census, almost 85% of US citizens have health care coverage. Out of the remaining 15%, 12% are kids under the age of 18. 25% are people who make under $25,000. Why not start with a process to address those two areas and then take inventory after? If you found a way to take a bit out of those two areas, over 90% of Americans would have insurance. Then, take a look at options on improving catestrophic care.

Scrapping the whole system and starting over seems like a huge waste. It would be like saying because we have 5% unemployment, we should send welfare checks out to Bill Gates to make sure everyone gets a paycheck. Fix the areas that have problems and leave the vast majority of people that currently have quality coverage alone.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10campaign.html

Mr. Obama, who has shattered fund-raising records for candidates of either party, is sending fresh signals that he may bypass public financing for the general election. He argues that his small contributors, many of whom have given again and again over the Internet, have injected a new democracy into fund-raising, with the result that a kind of “parallel public financing system” has been created.

Are you fucking kidding me? Talk about "politics as usual"!

[Young Drachma]

I'm opposed to nationalised health care, because I feel like the government has already mucked up almost anything it can get its hands on. The only thing I think that it can do is merge all of the federal health care programs it already manages into one bureaucracy and make that the program for health care for those who don't have it or can't get it. I think covering kids always makes the most sense, but if there are working adults who can't get coverage, then I feel like they ought to get some semblance of care too.

I do think getting companies out of the health care business would be super sensible, because with bloating student loan debts for many younger workers and shrinking retirements for many older ones, giving people more access to their money while they are healthy (rather than shifting it to paying for health care plans they never use) is just a smart way to motivate and invigorate a workforce.

I feel like we already have federal health care, between the VA system, the screwed up military system, the health care plan that federal workers get and of course, Medicare and Medicaid. If they can't find a way to envelope that junk into some sort of streamlined health care bureaucracy, then how do they expect us to buy that their new "Americare" would do just the trick to "helping the children" as they say.

It's my biggest quibble with the Dems, because I feel like any reasonable person would be fine with setting aside a small part of cash each year to help those who don't have health care. But to basically say that we all have to adopt some crappy plan that we don't want and that'll be forced out of our checks just like FICA, Income taxes and all of the other stuff they take out now are..is just unacceptable.

Like it or not, we are taxed ridiculously in this country and the "benefits" we receive aren't anything close to be comparable to "those in other countries."
The ones who are hurt the most by the tax burden aren't people who make over $100,000 a year or two-income families who earn over $75,000. It's people who are making less than that, who are working class and who don't know anything about shielding income, capital gains taxes or anything else.

But I guess the Dems are too busy fighting each other to get off the grid and think about that. Not that the GOP are lining up to do anything about it, either. Which exposed the fraud of the current political landscape.

[ISiddiqui]

So, you have a middle-aged man paying $200 a month (pre-tax) for good health benefits through his employer for his entire family and he gets to choose his own doctor and specialist for a low copay and high quality of service. Somehow telling that man now that he must pay more in taxes for coverage not as good for his kids is LESS of an invasion than forcing certain people to go through extra inspections when boarding a plane?

More in taxes for basic coverage for those who cannot afford it. His kids may get just as good coverage through their jobs when they get older. They'd still be covered under his employer's plan until they reach the age when they get booted.

And yes, that is far less of an "invasion". The middle aged man is already paying taxes for social security, medicare, etc, etc. An increased tax burden to help the poor recieve preventative medical care and, perhaps, catastrophic medical care to be covered is not all that much of an imposition.

The other benefit, of course, is that hospitals that around said middle aged man may not have to close because they are getting too many emergency patients who don't have insurance (IIRC, a major hospital in NJ just closed because of that).

According to the US Census, almost 85% of US citizens have health care coverage. Out of the remaining 15%, 12% are kids under the age of 18. 25% are people who make under $25,000. Why not start with a process to address those two areas and then take inventory after? If you found a way to take a bit out of those two areas, over 90% of Americans would have insurance. Then, take a look at options on improving catestrophic care.

Scrapping the whole system and starting over seems like a huge waste. It would be like saying because we have 5% unemployment, we should send welfare checks out to Bill Gates to make sure everyone gets a paycheck. Fix the areas that have problems and leave the vast majority of people that currently have quality coverage alone.

Um... the vast majority of people WOULD be left alone. I mean, do you really think that most people would leave their employer sponsored plan to jump on a very, very basic health plan, which may cover, what one doctor's visit a year and a few preventative measures?

I don't think any of the Democratic candidates since Kucinich dropped out were proposing a single payer system.

Hillary Clinton's is the most encompassing, IIRC, and her plan consists of offering the choice of government private health insurance plans (ie, what federal employees get). In addition, tax rebates to low income individuals and small businesses to make insurance affordable. And some more requirements for insurance companies (such as in coverage). I'm not sure how that's replacing anything really, or even scrapping the entire system and starting over.

[ISiddiqui]

Like it or not, we are taxed ridiculously in this country and the "benefits" we receive aren't anything close to be comparable to "those in other countries."

Um... what? What benefits do you see, say, European citizens get that are far better than American citizens (based on the comparative tax rates, which are much higher over the pond)?

[Buccaneer]

As Arles has said several times, let's start with looking at those without coverage and go from there. For the 85% of us, we are paying a lot (in part because of the lawyers) but we also demand good health care.

[ISiddiqui]

As Arles has said several times, let's start with looking at those without coverage and go from there. For the 85% of us, we are paying a lot (in part because of the lawyers) but we also demand good health care.

The "lawyers" thing is complete bullshit. Studies have shown that medical malpractice costs only account for an incredibly small amount of increased insurance costs. Most of it is due to insurance companies jacking up rates (even while they try to screw people on their plans).

And, apparently you aren't aware what the plans are, giving people the option of choosing an employer sponsored, private, or government sponsored plan with tax breaks for poor individuals for health care and small businesses to offer health care plans is a very effective way of providing health care to those without coverage. How else would you provide health care to those without coverage (and locate all of them as well)?

[Arles]

More in taxes for basic coverage for those who cannot afford it. His kids may get just as good coverage through their jobs when they get older. They'd still be covered under his employer's plan until they reach the age when they get booted. [merged] Um... the vast majority of people WOULD be left alone. I mean, do you really think that most people would leave their employer sponsored plan to jump on a very, very basic health plan, which may cover, what one doctor's visit a year and a few preventative measures?
See, this is where I saw some double-speak on the side of the nationalized health care crowd. On one hand, a benefit is to get employers out of the business of managing heath care (like JPhillips says above), yet one of the fallbacks is "well, if they don't like the national care, they can just stay with their employer". What happens when many employers decide (esp for middle class jobs) that they really don't need to provide health care anymore because of the national plan already provided? So much for choices then...

And yes, that is far less of an "invasion". The middle aged man is already paying taxes for social security, medicare, etc, etc. An increased tax burden to help the poor recieve preventative medical care and, perhaps, catastrophic medical care to be covered is not all that much of an imposition.
Why stop at healthcare, then? Why not tax him for everytime he takes a crap to use the toilet so that better toilets can be built in other neighborhoods or everytime his kid uses a phone so that kids in other neighborhoods can have better phones? The problem with these nationalized health care plans is they stick it to people making 40-60K who have solid health care, but barely get by. Now, this guy making 50K has to keep his $200-300 a month coverage to get his kids good coverage, but also pay $200 a month in taxes so that other people can have health coverage when he's struggling as it is.

The other benefit, of course, is that hospitals that around said middle aged man may not have to close because they are getting too many emergency patients who don't have insurance (IIRC, a major hospital in NJ just closed because of that).
Uninsured cost is a major issue (esp out here in Arizona). That's why I said look at a way to cover kids under 18 and a base plan for people who make under 25K. We also need to find a way to get a better handle on illegal immigration. But none of these issues involve creating a blanket health care plan that can cover Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Hillary Clinton's is the most encompassing, IIRC, and her plan consists of offering the choice of government private health insurance plans (ie, what federal employees get). In addition, tax rebates to low income individuals and small businesses to make insurance affordable. And some more requirements for insurance companies (such as in coverage). I'm not sure how that's replacing anything really, or even scrapping the entire system and starting over.
You really think that the moment this gets passed, a bunch of low to middle class jobs won't just drop health coverage for their workers? There are two reasons for an employer to offer health coverage: 1. entice people to work for them. 2. Public pressure to provide coverage. If you remove number 2, then there is no reason for every middle to low skill job (ie, easily replaced) to provide health coverage. Then, we have most jobs under 50K not offering health care. So, what happens if this government plan doesn't work out from a quality/cost standpoint?

Having the government cover people who already have solid insurance is a terrible thing to do. Not only is the cost an issue, but you risk losing the system that is currently working for much of the middle class. Just focus on the groups that don't have it (and really need it). If you find better ways (maybe through tax incentives) to help small businesses better afford coverage, cover kids and cover people under 25K, you've essentially solved the "health care crisis". Not to be heartless, but it's not the government's job to cover a 22-year old single guy who passes on health care coverage from his employer to have more beer money.

[CamEdwards]

I fail to see how "half the transactions" equals "1 in 2" government employees abuse the system. This argument by you, above, is called manipulating numbers... or you didn't notice the transactions part in the article (I'd imagine those who are scamming Uncle Sam are making far, far, far more transactions on their government card than those who are playing by the rules.

No, you're right. I should've edited that. Still, are you okay with "half the transactions" being improper? Is that a sign that the government bureaucracy is being managed well?

[ISiddiqui]

See, this is where I saw some double-speak on the side of the nationalized health care crowd. On one hand, a benefit is to get employers out of the business of managing heath care (like JPhillips says above), yet one of the fallbacks is "well, if they don't like the national care, they can just stay with their employer". What happens when many employers decide (esp for middle class jobs) that they really don't need to provide health care anymore because of the national plan already provided? So much for choices then...

It isn't necessarily to get employers out of the business of managing health care, but making health care more affordable. Coverage of those in poverty will drive down hospital expenses (due to not losing a ton of indigent patients) and thus premium costs (though some regulation will also have to account for that). It has really been the rapid rise of health care premium costs which have hurt American business in competition with firms from the continent.

And some businesses may drop their health care plan, but then others that offer it will be more attractive for employees (benefits are, of course, a form of pay).

Why stop at healthcare, then? Why not tax him for everytime he takes a crap to use the toilet so that better toilets can be built in other neighborhoods or everytime his kid uses a phone so that kids in other neighborhoods can have better phones? The problem with these nationalized health care plans is they stick it to people making 40-60K who have solid health care, but barely get by. Now, this guy making 50K has to keep his $200-300 a month coverage to get his kids good coverage, but also pay $200 a month in taxes so that other people can have health coverage when he's struggling as it is.

Because certain folks believe basic guarentees of healthcare is a basic human right, and we'd rather not have hospitals be stuck with the bill (and have to fold or charge insane hospital costs to recoup the lost money), but for it to be spread out over society.

Uninsured cost is a major issue (esp out here in Arizona). That's why I said look at a way to cover kids under 18 and a base plan for people who make under 25K. We also need to find a way to get a better handle on illegal immigration. But none of these issues involve creating a blanket health care plan that can cover Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

You mean a mandated national health plan for kids under 18 and those under the poverty line? Why is an option for a government subsidized plan that much worse? I doubt many people who have jobs with decent health care are going to drop it for the basic government plan.

You really think that the moment this gets passed, a bunch of low to middle class jobs won't just drop health coverage for their workers? There are two reasons for an employer to offer health coverage: 1. entice people to work for them. 2. Public pressure to provide coverage. If you remove number 2, then there is no reason for every middle to low skill job (ie, easily replaced) to provide health coverage. Then, we have most jobs under 50K not offering health care. So, what happens if this government plan doesn't work out from a quality/cost standpoint?

No, I don't think those jobs will just drop health coverage. First of all, they won't get the tax breaks for having a health plan and there will always be in competition to entice people to work for you and someone will be offering coverage.

As for the quality/cost standpoint, there are plenty of available insurance providers under government health care plans. If you don't like the quality/cost of one, transfer to another during the next open enrollment period.

Government health care is really just the government, using its bargaining power and economies of scale to get lower premiums from insurance companies. You realize that, right? Currenly I'm on the Federal Employees Program with Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Georgia. I'm quite positive that I probably pay a little bit more than plenty of large scale private employers.

If you find better ways (maybe through tax incentives) to help small businesses better afford coverage, cover kids and cover people under 25K, you've essentially solved the "health care crisis". Not to be heartless, but it's not the government's job to cover a 22-year old single guy who passes on health care coverage from his employer to have more beer money.

A) You do realize that both the Clinton and Obama plans have a central piece tax incentives for small businesses, right?
B) The 22 year old single guy will still have to pay premiums, so if he passes on health care coverage from his employer, it isn't like he's going to paying all the less on a government sponsored health plan.

[ISiddiqui]

No, you're right. I should've edited that. Still, are you okay with "half the transactions" being improper? Is that a sign that the government bureaucracy is being managed well?

We have barely any problems with government charge cards in our agency. Though a few years back there was one guy who was gaming the system (he was fired and almost thrown in jail). Sometimes you have managers who are on top of the ball on these things and sometimes you don't. The only way to really deal with it is to do more thorough investigation of travel vouchers, really.

[chesapeake]

And no, most government employees don't engage in that type of behavior. According to the audit, only 1 in 2 do.

Your answer, I'm presuming, would be to further increase the size of government in order to provide stricter scrutiny for the government employees and their use of government issued credit cards?

For what it is worth, whatever Cartman quoted was not what the report said, which is on my desk as I write this. The statistic being referred to is that 41% of the purchase card transactions audited by GAO were either not authorized properly by superiors or that the goods had not been received and signed for by someone other than the person making the purchase. The number of actual improper purchases -- the lingerie, iPods and big dinners -- is only a fraction of this. But still disturbingly high and needs to be addressed.

And, yes, the answer is to increase the respective Inspectors General in each agency to ensure that the cards aren't abused. Typical of this Administration and the past leadership in this Congress, they substantially cut back on the IGs accross the board. If no one sees it, it isn't a problem! In this case, adding to government increases efficiency.

[JPhillips]

Cam: The 40% number is right, but using it as you do is misleading. I'm not an expert on tax policy so I can't explain it well, but there is often a substantial difference between marginal rate and effective rate. Americans are not paying 40% of their income in taxes.

And as Chesapeake said, the credit card issue is a problem, but Republicans have spent a couple of decades wrecking government and then claiming that incompetence proves that government can't work. I'd also like to put those numbers in context by comparing them to private industry. At first glance I would guess that there isn't much difference.

On healthcare, I differ from Siddiqui and both candidates in that I would go for single payer or nothing. I think adding another layer of complexity onto our already impossible system will be much more likely to fail than starting over.

[Arles]

And some businesses may drop their health care plan, but then others that offer it will be more attractive for employees (benefits are, of course, a form of pay).
If I run a factory with a fairly high turnover rate or another low-skill job, why would I offer health care coverage? To me, the ones that keep it are the white collar jobs. Meanwhile, a lot of the middle class blue collar workers may be forced to join the federal plan.

Because certain folks believe basic guarentees of healthcare is a basic human right, and we'd rather not have hospitals be stuck with the bill (and have to fold or charge insane hospital costs to recoup the lost money), but for it to be spread out over society.
That's great in theory, but how is it better for 2000 middle class workers to pay more so that one hospital can pay less?

You mean a mandated national health plan for kids under 18 and those under the poverty line? Why is an option for a government subsidized plan that much worse?
For the same reason having unemployment available to unemployed people is OK, but having unemployment checks available to everyone is wasteful. Target the areas where most people need the help, then take another look. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water here in trying to address the 15% without coverage.


A) You do realize that both the Clinton and Obama plans have a central piece tax incentives for small businesses, right?
I think this is a good idea. Like I said above, targeted actions to improve certain areas through tax incentives is the way we should start this. Not come out with a blanket government HMO everyone has to pay for whether they need it or not.

B) The 22 year old single guy will still have to pay premiums, so if he passes on health care coverage from his employer, it isn't like he's going to paying all the less on a government sponsored health plan.
No, but the point is if you think health care coverage is a major issue, you should focus on the high return areas like kids, small businesses and people making under 25K. There are plenty of single guys between the age of 18 and 26 not covered, but for many that is a choice they make. Citing the fact that they are not covered to justify a national plan is faulty, IMO.

[Young Drachma]

I know people who prefer to be contractors rather than full-time employees, so they don't have to get company health care and get can get paid 20k more money. I didn't realize this was a practice by many, but have to come to understand that it is in high-growth industries or those where the money flows.

I'd much rather have a job that paid more and where I could secure my own health insurance plan. But right now? It's not even a choice. A national plan would just shift who steals the money from my check for coverage I might never use.

It's what Bush was talking about in his poorly worded part of his SotU address about 'gold-plated' health plans and how we need to shift this from employers to employees and make the market more competitive, by giving people real choices.

Government plans won't work, no matter how idealist and warm and fuzzy they make modern liberals. They already fail in the status quo and I can't see how Hillarycare (Pt. 2) or ObamaCare will do anything to make this situation better, short of giving us wispy platitudes about sick kids who can't get health care or parents who work lots and can't get it either.

A federal plan is simply not the way to go.

[ISiddiqui]

Not come out with a blanket government HMO everyone has to pay for whether they need it or not.

Where exactly does this idea come from? I think people are imparting what THEY believe a universal health care plan to be rather than looking at the ones advanced by Clinton or Obama.

There are plenty of single guys between the age of 18 and 26 not covered, but for many that is a choice they make.

And they can continue to not make that choice. They'll just have to help out a bit in paying for those who can't afford anything else.

For the same reason having unemployment available to unemployed people is OK, but having unemployment checks available to everyone is wasteful.

A better analogy is the government offers a choice between offering unemployement checks from the government, or payroll checks from your employer. Even that fails at some level because any government plan gives you a wide variety of choice among different insurance agencies. It'd basically be treating those without coverage as they were getting employer health care and offering another choice to those who already have employer health care.

If I run a factory with a fairly high turnover rate or another low-skill job, why would I offer health care coverage?

Why do they offer it now?

[JPhillips]

The problem with minimal heathcare policies is that when you need better coverage for a major accident or illness someone is going to have to pay. It isn't like home owner's insurance where you'd lose your house and be able to move on. We aren't going to let the 25 yaer old with leukemia die because he has minimal insurance.

In theory competition and shopping around sounds great, but if that policy isn't enough the hospital, which ends up meaning the patients, is going to get stuck with the costs of treatment. If we're going to look at the morality of forced insurance we need to include that side as well.

[Young Drachma]

And they can continue to not make that choice. They'll just have to help out a bit in paying for those who can't afford anything else.


WHY?! does people on the modern left feel like everyone has to be entitled to stuff? Why do folks feel like there should be a bevy of government programs in place that many of the people who actually need them will refuse to use because of the stigma, feel like we need to create an extra layer of safety net for people who are on the absolute bottom?

What is the marginal benefit to another apparatus for what amounts to more and more government waste? Or is that part of the whole "greater good" element involved in "you get to live here, so you can contribute..."

As if that well-intentioned boondoggle entitled Social Security isn't enough of a fraud, trying to create another government sponsored ponzi scheme intended to help, when all it'll really do is fail to yield any effective results, given the track record of what's already out there in the status quo.

[Warhammer]

Why do they offer it now?

As an incentive to work there. The problem is if the government starts offering health care there are one of two things that happens:

1) The employee takes the system offered by his employer and pays for this program and the government program.

2) The employee declines the system and goes on the government program.

Neither case is really all that great in my mind.

What would be great, but would never happen, is that the government could put out three insurance programs. These are offered to uninsured families. One is $25 per month, one is $50 per month, and the other is $100 per month. Let he uninsured decide what they want. If they decline, screw 'em they wanted a free meal ticket.

[JPhillips]

DC: I truly believe that we can create a single payer system that provides the same level of care at a lower per capita cost. That doesn't mean that a piece of legislation won't fuck it up, but everything I've read makes it clear that we spend more for less than most other countries. Health care isn't anywhere close to efficient now as upwards of one third of every dollar spent goes to overhead. Just in the area of preventive care tracking and data management we could save billions, but there is little incentive for nay healthcare provider to invest in that when people switch coverage so often.

I'm also firmly of the belief that a single payer health plan will put billions into the bottom line for U.S. businesses. The time and money that's spent by HR departments on healthcare related work is staggering.

I'll freely admit that some people will pay more under a single payer plan then they do now, but overall I do believe that costs will be reduced if it's done well. The one area I'll agree with you and Buc is that there is too high a liklelihood that Congress will fuck it up. I just think that the possibility of failure isn't a reason to abandon hope.

[albionmoonlight]

Just in the area of preventive care tracking and data management we could save billions, but there is little incentive for nay healthcare provider to invest in that when people switch coverage so often.

This is an overlooked point. Insurers have little incentive to pay pennies for prevention in order to save dollars in treatment years down the line. Each insurer figures that the odds are good that someone will change jobs a few times and end up on some other insurer's plan when the costly treatment is needed.

Again, a tragedy of the commons. If we could (through whatever mechanism) make it likely that the insurance company in charge of your preventative care would be in charge of your treatment, then they would have an incentive to reduce costs in the system and invest more in prevention.

I don't have any answers. I just like saying "tragedy of the commons."

[ISiddiqui]

WHY?! does people on the modern left feel like everyone has to be entitled to stuff? Why do folks feel like there should be a bevy of government programs in place that many of the people who actually need them will refuse to use because of the stigma, feel like we need to create an extra layer of safety net for people who are on the absolute bottom?

What is the marginal benefit to another apparatus for what amounts to more and more government waste? Or is that part of the whole "greater good" element involved in "you get to live here, so you can contribute..."

As if that well-intentioned boondoggle entitled Social Security isn't enough of a fraud, trying to create another government sponsored ponzi scheme intended to help, when all it'll really do is fail to yield any effective results, given the track record of what's already out there in the status quo.

It isn't necessarily the "modern left". Public opinion polls have shown that a majority of Americans don't think our health care system is sufficient. There is a reason that every Democratic candidate had to have a health care system (or wanted a system) to be a viable candidate. That's the way the country is headed. Sure, it's about decades behind other Western industrialized countries, but too many horror stories and dealing with evil insurance companies have convinced folk that something needs to be done.

They don't want single payer (and hardly any Dem candidates actually offered that), but they do think people who can't go in for preventative health care should be offered a choice to be able to do so. Kind of like how food stamps are considered something we should do for people, that is why a reasonable oppertunity of health care should be offered.

As I said, some believe it is a basic human right. And plenty of people don't consider Social Security to be a failure, btw (now if they could only keep their grubby mitts out of the surplus that had come out of it in order to pay for higher costs during baby boomer retirement, things may have been easier).

[JPhillips]

I do know that tragedy of the commons is common in modern tragedy.

[Arles]

It isn't necessarily the "modern left". Public opinion polls have shown that a majority of Americans don't think our health care system is sufficient. There is a reason that every Democratic candidate had to have a health care system (or wanted a system) to be a viable candidate. That's the way the country is headed.
See, I think these polls are extremely faulty to draw conclusions from. Take the NYT/CBS poll done in March here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/health_care.pdf

1. 64% feel the government should guarantee coverage for all people.
2. 30% feel the government will do better than private, 44% think they will do worse.

Interesting logic. Basically, a large chunk of people in this poll feel they should have a system worse than the system they have right now - and that's their "solution".

3. 90% say they think fundamental changes need to be made or the health care system completely rebuilt. 38% are somewhat or very satisfied with the quality of care in the US.
4. 77% were either somewhat or very satisfied in their own personal coverage quality.

So, again, most feel the country is terrible at health care and we need fundamental changes. But, they are happy with the current system they have individually.

Again, this is like all the doom and gloom economy polls where people are happy with their financial situation, but worried about their neighbor. In essence, according to these polls, we get the following info:

People feel satisfied with their own coverage and don't think the government would do as well. But, major changes need to be made and that the government should run it.

Makes a ton of sense, doesn't it? All these polls reflect is the guilt people with good coverage have - so, we end up with these grand schemes to fix a problem that really isn't nearly as bad as most make it out to be.

[QuikSand]

Let's say you actually sat down with one of these mysterious survey respondents, and he said this to you:

I have a job, and I'm fairly secure. With my job I get health insurance, and that doesn't seem like it's going to change. So, my coverage is basically okay -- I might not love everything my HMO does, but I get the care that my family needs.

Meanwhile, my brother lost his job last year, and now he doesn't have health insurance any more while he is looking for real work. He got ill last month, and had to go to the emergency room, and he couldn't pay for it. As I understand it, the hospital basically just eats that cost, and basically send the bill to the people who do pay for their care -- people like me, even though it's supposedly my employer who is paying for my coverage. They could be giving me that extra money instead of spending it on inflated premiums.

I guess I'm glad that my uninsured brother got his emergency treatment, but it seems dumb that everyone else pays for it. It also seems dumb that he and his pregnant wife don't go to the doctor for checkups because it would cost them $100 to do so, and they don't have the $100. They aren't dirt poor, but times are tight and it seems they would be making better decisions if this were out of the day-to-day mix for them. I wonder what might happen to me if I lost my job... I might end up in just the same situation, and I'd hate to have to decide whether I pay the electric bill or take my kid to the doctor.

If that's a fair statement about a person's state of affairs... isn't it conceivable that such a person could indeed honestly respond to questions that:

-Yes, my current coverage is okay
-I still think this overall system should be better

[Young Drachma]

DC: I truly believe that we can create a single payer system that provides the same level of care at a lower per capita cost. That doesn't mean that a piece of legislation won't fuck it up, but everything I've read makes it clear that we spend more for less than most other countries. Health care isn't anywhere close to efficient now as upwards of one third of every dollar spent goes to overhead. Just in the area of preventive care tracking and data management we could save billions, but there is little incentive for nay healthcare provider to invest in that when people switch coverage so often.

I'm also firmly of the belief that a single payer health plan will put billions into the bottom line for U.S. businesses. The time and money that's spent by HR departments on healthcare related work is staggering.

I'll freely admit that some people will pay more under a single payer plan then they do now, but overall I do believe that costs will be reduced if it's done well. The one area I'll agree with you and Buc is that there is too high a liklelihood that Congress will fuck it up. I just think that the possibility of failure isn't a reason to abandon hope.

I think you and I are far more close on the view of this than it seems.

I don't know we'll avoid some measure of a federal health care programme. I don't think people should have health care that shifts each time they change a job and the current economies of scale don't really allow anyone to have "portable" health care and neither the proposals on the Democratic or Republican side address the issues as I think they're being experienced by people who live in the "real world."

My personal position and my pragmatic political position on the issue are different. I realize the pragmatics behind altering the status quo and realize that it's going to result in some semblance of government managed health care. They're already in the business of it, so my position is, fix it and create a system that works...versus just slapping more layers and more taxes on trying to add a new layer to a bloated system that's not working very well to begin with.

I'd love to have a situation where we can lower the tax burden and begin to revolutionize the way Americans view personal responsibility and the role of government -- especially at the federal level.

But I see no indication of any sort of tide heading in that direction, which leaves me far more pragmatic about a solution that would at least get us to a place where what we have works efficiently (at least, as efficiently as one can expect a large federal bureaucracy to work)

I just have a hard time reading well-intentioned, but misguided logic that says "OMG, we have to HELP!?! Tax the people who have moved up the chain, because it's their fault?!"

I know that's not what's being said, but...in the end, I just can't rationalize any system that hitches its wagon to the most vulnerable of those in the middle class. We should do what we can to help those at the bottom have at least basic medical care and services and increase access to quality medical support around the country.

That would require an investment of private and public sector dollars in areas that we've just ignored. I don't know if a government health care system of any kind would help this, but if it were to be devised, it would have to be targeting more heavily the areas that need primary care the most, because that's almost as much of a problem as the lack of health insurance for people..is the lack of available care in rural or micropolitan areas.

[Arles]

Let's say you actually sat down with one of these mysterious survey respondents, and he said this to you:

I have a job, and I'm fairly secure. With my job I get health insurance, and that doesn't seem like it's going to change. So, my coverage is basically okay -- I might not love everything my HMO does, but I get the care that my family needs.

Meanwhile, my brother lost his job last year, and now he doesn't have health insurance any more while he is looking for real work. He got ill last month, and had to go to the emergency room, and he couldn't pay for it. As I understand it, the hospital basically just eats that cost, and basically send the bill to the people who do pay for their care -- people like me, even though it's supposedly my employer who is paying for my coverage. They could be giving me that extra money instead of spending it on inflated premiums.

I guess I'm glad that my uninsured brother got his emergency treatment, but it seems dumb that everyone else pays for it. It also seems dumb that he and his pregnant wife don't go to the doctor for checkups because it would cost them $100 to do so, and they don't have the $100. They aren't dirt poor, but times are tight and it seems they would be making better decisions if this were out of the day-to-day mix for them. I wonder what might happen to me if I lost my job... I might end up in just the same situation, and I'd hate to have to decide whether I pay the electric bill or take my kid to the doctor.

If that's a fair statement about a person's state of affairs... isn't it conceivable that such a person could indeed honestly respond to questions that:

-Yes, my current coverage is okay
-I still think this overall system should be better
Well, according the survey above, 77% of the people were exactly in that situation (or one similar to it) then. I think a more likely case is:

"I have solid coverage. I'm pretty happy with it. But, I turn on the news every night and see all these stories on people without coverage and am told how terrible our health care system is."

[ISiddiqui]

People feel satisfied with their own coverage and don't think the government would do as well. But, major changes need to be made and that the government should run it.

I think its far more complicated than that, as QuikSand hypo indicates that people may be happy with their own coverage, but know people who are dire situations because of their health care problems. So the solution isn't one extreme or the other, but a mixture; one where people can keep their own health care policies, but have something to cover everyone who isn't covered currently (or at least be given the option to be covered).

And I don't think its necessarily they "turn on the news every night", because I don't think the news actually reports the horror stories. Maybe I have a bit of bias, since I work in the field, but there are people who have employer health insurance who are just getting screwed, mostly by insurance companies who are putting up ridiculous roadblocks. Perhaps the solution is to have the insurance companies be regulated by the federal government as well as the states (right now only the states regulate insurance companies, the feds, though, regulate employer sponsored health plans, which is a bit of a problem - ie, go after the employer not the insurance company, even though the ins company wrote and administers the plan - but that's what the law says).

[JPhillips]

When all else fails, blame the media.

Insecurity is the big issue for people. Even those with good jobs now are worried about the lack of security going forward. People with very good incomes only have a couple of months or less of savings to live on if they lose their job. Healthcare is in the same basket. I have healthcare now, but if I'm not renewed next year I won't. What do I do with my three year old daughter? She's very healthy, but what if she wasn't? I could get by on COBRA for a while, but it wouldn't take long before I'd have to choose between house payment and COBRA as my two major expenses.

All of the polls on the economy and healthcare are reflecting a general sense of insecurity that Americans haven't really come to terms with yet. For better or worse we live in an age where change is rapid and can be devestating. Collectively Americans are better off now than fifty years ago, but individually there is a lot of anxiety because our lives are far less predictable.

[QuikSand]

If a evil regime were to institute a system where one of every four newborn children were slain immediately... you could have 75% of families saying that the system worked fine for them, but still support getting rid of it. I'm not sure there's much substance to the little dance you're trying to do with the statistics here.

I personally, and pretty much everyone I know, have perfectly adequate health insurance. But I also recognize that our system is not a particularly sensible one. I have a healthy skepticism about the government's ability to effectively "take over" much of anything, but I can see that the stripe of people we leave completely uncovered is simply not good for society, regardless of the demerits of any particular proposed solution.

So, I'm part of that 77% or whatever share of the populace you seem to think is full of shit or just a sheep to the evil media. And I'm not actually a complete imbecile, by most accounts.

[CamEdwards]

A new poll on this just came out today.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/29_favor_national_health_insurance_overseen_by_federal_government


Twenty-nine percent (29%) of American adults favor a national health insurance program overseen by the Federal Government. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 39% oppose such a government-led initiative while 31% are not sure.

The survey also found that 46% believe the quality of care would decrease under a national health insurance program while 16% believe that quality would increase. Twenty percent (20%) say the quality of care would remain about the same while 18% are not sure.

At the same time, 42% believe the cost of health care would increase while 25% would expect prices to go down.

While opposing a national program overseen by the federal government, Americans support requiring companies to provide health insurance for their employees. Sixty-three percent (63%) favor such a requirement while 24% are opposed.

[ISiddiqui]

Post more of the article, would you? ;)


An earlier survey found that just 31% rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/poll_highlights_opportunity_and_challenges_for_health_care_reform).
At the same time, people give much higher reviews to their own health care coverage.
Another survey found that half of all Americans say they support providing free health care for all citizens. However, support for free coverage drops dramatically if it would require changing to a new insurance program (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/free_health_care_not_if_it_means_switching_insurance_coverage).
So half Americans would support FREE health care for all citizens as long as they get to stay on their own insurance. And it seems that more than that believe the system need overhauling, but they like their own coverage at the moment.

[Arles]

I personally, and pretty much everyone I know, have perfectly adequate health insurance. But I also recognize that our system is not a particularly sensible one. I have a healthy skepticism about the government's ability to effectively "take over" much of anything, but I can see that the stripe of people we leave completely uncovered is simply not good for society, regardless of the demerits of any particular proposed solution.
I think this fair - and I agree with it for the most part. The problem I have is the use of these polls by some to justify going to a national health care system. If the question is whether our current system needs some adjustments to improve coverage/reduce cost, I will certainly agree. Heck, you can read numerous posts above and in the old health care thread on what I would like to see happen.

So, I'm part of that 77% or whatever share of the populace you seem to think is full of shit or just a sheep to the evil media. And I'm not actually a complete imbecile, by most accounts.
Having a view of a situation inconsistent with your own experience does not make you sheep. It's just interesting that so many people with perfectly good insurance feel that massive changes are needed (according to the poll). Then again, we have 95% employment and there are polls that show 60% worried about their job. Uncertainty always creates worry, but the proper course here is not to panic and start over - it's to see where the holes in the current system are and work towards filling them.

[CamEdwards]

Post more of the article, would you? ;)



So half Americans would support FREE health care for all citizens as long as they get to stay on their own insurance. And it seems that more than that believe the system need overhauling, but they like their own coverage at the moment.

I kinda disregarded that poll question, given that there is no such thing as free health care.

Clearly the American people are somewhat schizophrenic on this issue, which makes me think that most of us (myself included) know enough to have opinions, but not enough to have INFORMED opinions. So you get all kinds of wacky numbers.

[Buccaneer]

Public opinion polls have shown that a majority of Americans don't think our health care system is sufficient.

A majority of Americans don't think our national security is sufficient and would rather have the federal govt do even more to keep us safe from harm.

Imran, serious question. You been pushing this and similar positions pretty hard in the past year. I think I've read that you are a govt lawyer of some sort? Do you personally gain from expanded govt in this area?

I say this because I have a best friend from HS who has been working in various federal agencies as a scientist (astrophysicists). He has been working for USNO, last I've heard, and before, NOAA. He has always been fairly moderate but hates Bush simply because of the cuts in scientific endeavors at the federal level. He will vote for whomever will increase the stature and fundings of scientists on federal payrolls.

[ISiddiqui]

Imran, serious question. You been pushing this and similar positions pretty hard in the past year. I think I've read that you are a govt lawyer of some sort? Do you personally gain from expanded govt in this area?

I am, officially, a Pension Investigator. I also investigate Health Care Plans. Basically to make sure that employer sponsored plans follow ERISA.

If there was, say, a single payer health plan, half of my job would be obsolete (and well, that may not be so good in terms of future funding).

So I think it doesn't help me if the situation is solved. Hell, as long as there is a mess in health care, the funding for my agency stays the same or increases. Even a mixed system would probably help reduce some of the participant inquires (because any mixed plan has some federal regulation/oversight on insurance companies).

[sterlingice]

You really think that the moment this gets passed, a bunch of low to middle class jobs won't just drop health coverage for their workers? There are two reasons for an employer to offer health coverage: 1. entice people to work for them. 2. Public pressure to provide coverage. If you remove number 2, then there is no reason for every middle to low skill job (ie, easily replaced) to provide health coverage. Then, we have most jobs under 50K not offering health care. So, what happens if this government plan doesn't work out from a quality/cost standpoint?

I think a lot of us are worried about this going away. My health coverage and my parents health coverage (as I'm not really old enough to just go on my own) has gotten significantly worse and cost signifcantly more. Each year my coverage costs go up much more than inflation but my benefits keep getting cut.

I honestly believe that in the next 10~20 years, health coverage will not be one of the benefits that is expected to be on the table when you're going in to get a job. One or two major companies will break the barrier and not offer it except as an extreme perk or say something like "here's your $500 monthly medical insurance stipend" that will be easy enough to phase out over a few years with much less fanfare than when it first happens. So, yeah, I'd like to have an alternative to that in the works.

In fact, I wish people had to have insurance because it's far more of a health risk to me in my everyday life than terrorism or any other "risk" you could come up with. I don't need some idiot I'm working with coming in with TB or pneumonia because they wanted to, as it was put earlier in the thread, "pass on health care coverage from his employer to have more beer money" rather than getting checked out at the doctor.

SI

[BishopMVP]

In fact, I wish people had to have insurance because it's far more of a health risk to me in my everyday life than terrorism or any other "risk" you could come up with. I don't need some idiot I'm working with coming in with TB or pneumonia because they wanted to, as it was put earlier in the thread, "pass on health care coverage from his employer to have more beer money" rather than getting checked out at the doctor.Yeah, but whether a person comes in feeling sick or not doesn't really depend on whether they have insurance. Insurance and check-ups theoretically prevent or alleviate long-term problems like cancer or heart disease before they become serious and more costly. I think everyone can pretty much tell if they have the flu without going to see the doctor, and the decision to go into work is based on a personal choice and company sick-day policy/standard procedure around the office.


As for the other parts, I think people are depressingly risk-averse these days. It's not a perfect analogy, but the classic is "how much would you need guaranteed to pass up the chance to flip a coin and win $100 - or get nothing". The way people talk about health care these days would it probably run about $20 on average. Way to strive for mediocrity.

11 days until Pennsylvania finally happens. Hillary up ~8 pts on average, but there's one poll with an 18-pt spread that might be jacking that lead up a little.

[Vegas Vic]

It will be interesting to see how he navigates himself out of this one.

Obama Draws Fire for Comments on Small-Town America

Hillary Clinton and John McCain both ripped into Barack Obama Friday for reportedly saying residents of small-town America “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” out of bitterness over lost jobs, a remark his opponents interpreted as arrogant.

The Huffington Post reported that Obama made the comments while speaking to a group of wealthy California donors in San Francisco over the weekend. The Post quotes him specifically singling out towns in Pennsylvania, where he’s trying to woo voters and overcome Clinton’s lead in the polls before the state’s April 22 primary.

The comments immediately became fodder for the campaigns of Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, and McCain, his potential Republican challenger.

“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them,” Clinton said Friday afternoon at a campaign stop in Philadelphia. She said the Pennsylvanians she’s met aren’t bitter, but “resilient” and “positive.”

McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called Obama’s statement “remarkable” and “extremely revealing.”

“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” Schmidt said. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president of the United States who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

Schmidt also said it shows Obama views the people he’s trying to relate to with “contempt.”

The Obama campaign has neither confirmed nor disputed the account in The Huffington Post.

Spokesman Tommy Vietor, though, released a statement chiding Washington insiders for failing to restore those lost jobs Obama reportedly referenced in San Francisco.

“And if John McCain wants a debate about who’s out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now wants to make permanent,” Vietor said.

The Huffington Post originally quoted Obama as saying: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama, who consistently leads Clinton among highly educated and wealthy voters, has tried to make up ground with middle-class America, where Clinton is strong. But recent comments from him and his wife Michelle have occasionally been interpreted as too high-minded.

Michelle Obama, for instance, drew criticism in February for saying she was “proud” of her country for the first time in her adult life.

A March 28 article in New York magazine reported that, according to a Democratic strategist, Obama was unable to clinch the endorsement of exiting candidate John Edwards because he was “glib and aloof” when Edwards tried to talk to him about poverty.

“It comes off very badly,” Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said of Obama’s small-town America remarks. “They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people.”

Of course, Clinton would have a hard time arguing she’s just like those small-town Pennsylvania voters. She and her husband’s newly released tax returns showed they earned nearly $110 million since leaving the White House, compared with the Obamas’ meager millions earned in the same period.

Full Story (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/11/obama-draws-fire-for-comments-on-small-town-america/)

[CamEdwards]

Yeah, I've seen this one resonating around the blogs for the past few hours. It's interesting to see some of the spin from Obama supporters. I've seen similar sentiment expressed in the comments at sevearl blogs.

He was actually showing empathy in that statement...



Frankly, this would normally be a good time for something like this to come out. But Sunday night there's the debate focusing on "spirituality" and "values" on CNN. You know the Jeremiah Wright stuff's going to come up, and now there's another comment Obama will be questioned on. I don't think Obama's current response will work (though Axelrod has 48 hours to craft a good spin).


-

[Buccaneer]

“It comes off very badly,” Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said of Obama’s small-town America remarks. “They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people.”

I see visions of John Kerry as he tried to connect outside of his base in the general. Harsh words from a Dem strategist.

[-apoc-]

Is it just me or did he just spin this whole thing around and turn it into a boost for himself?

http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc9PepjyDow

[JPhillips]

It does come off badly, but it also sounds exactly like the small town in rural Ohio I grew up in. Does anyone here really disagree with this as a way to explain a lot of people who have seen the world pass them by over the past two or three decades? I grew up watching factories close and families lose their farms. Some of those jobs came back, but not all of them. Now there's a lot of anger that gets manifested in us versus them sentiments.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

[BishopMVP]

It does come off badly, but it also sounds exactly like the small town in rural Ohio I grew up in. Does anyone here really disagree with this as a way to explain a lot of people who have seen the world pass them by over the past two or three decades? I grew up watching factories close and families lose their farms. Some of those jobs came back, but not all of them. Now there's a lot of anger that gets manifested in us versus them sentiments.If you're gonna boil it down to us vs. them, why throw the gun thing in the list? And it's pretty easy to see why saying that small-town people "cling to religion" would be considered offensive by almost everybody. Religious people who actually believe in their faith are clearly gonna be pissed and then people who aren't religious and view themselves as kind of better than relying on it as a crutch are going to be offended they and their (in their mind) legitimate grievances are lumped in with people they don't see as very rational.

F'ing elitists.

[Galaril]

Is it just me or did he just spin this whole thing around and turn it into a boost for himself?

http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc9PepjyDow

If you're gonna boil it down to us vs. them, why throw the gun thing in the list? And it's pretty easy to see why saying that small-town people "cling to religion" would be considered offensive by almost everybody. Religious people who actually believe in their faith are clearly gonna be pissed and then people who aren't religious and view themselves as kind of better than relying on it as a crutch are going to be offended they and their (in their mind) legitimate grievances are lumped in with people they don't see as very rational.

F'ing elitists.

That was a pretty smooth come back on his part . And I will have to say this is a real stretch trying to say Obama was slamming the blue collar class. Anyone who reads his actual comments can see what he meant. Coming from four generation irish immigrants originally to the Boston area and myself being the first member of my family to be recieve a graduate degree let alone just four year college I guess I could be classified as one of those f'ing elitists. I for one am proud to have worked my way up and won't apologize for it and neither should anyone else who is college educated which seems to be what Clinton is peddling to middle america. BTW Bishop aren't you a college kid yourself?

[Buccaneer]

The ironic thing is that you can apply the same logic to the city of San Francisco, where he made that remark. There is a lot of us vs them in that city, keeping the undesirables in certain sections. Why single out a selected segment of a selected area of the country?

explain a lot of people who have seen the world pass them by over the past two or three decades

Yes, if you are looking at a selected set of people and ignoring the vast majority. Why the past two or three decades when it's been like that everywhere throughout our (and other country's) history? Economies change, technologies change, demographics change. Why pick on them and not, say, southside Chicago?

[CamEdwards]

Okay, after listening to it, I don't think he helped himself out among gun owners anyway (and there a ton of gun owning Democrats in PA). He still seemed to suggest that only reason people would vote the gun issue (for example) is because they feel like neither candidate will help them economically.

Frankly, that's a laughable claim to make in a state that just voted down a gun control proposal last week... and a helluva lot of Democrat State Representatives voted against it too. Gun owners are a powerful political force in PA, and he's basically told them they can't really be serious about their passion.

[BishopMVP]

That was a pretty smooth come back on his part . And I will have to say this is a real stretch trying to say Obama was slamming the blue collar class. Anyone who reads his actual comments can see what he meant. Coming from four generation irish immigrants originally to the Boston area and myself being the first member of my family to be recieve a graduate degree let alone just four year college I guess I could be classified as one of those f'ing elitists. I for one am proud to have worked my way up and won't apologize for it and neither should anyone else who is college educated which seems to be what Clinton is peddling to middle america. BTW Bishop aren't you a college kid yourself?
Wow, not sure about that response. Starts off well enough, but by the end his argument is that the American people are angry and bitter and that's why they want change? Also hilarious how he claims to want to avoid pandering the whole time, then his first claim is that jobs have been shipped overseas.

As for me and the f'ing elitist claim, yes I'm a college student, and I'll agree with much of his statement that people in middle america (or anywhere) cling to dumb ideas and vote for the wrong reasons. I wasn't arguing whether he was right, I was arguing it's gonna hurt his perception in rural america and thus his election chances. That was the one biggest thing that tipped the election to Bush over Kerry was the perception that Kerry was an elitist when GWB wasjust as privileged. It's not who you are and what you believe but how it's presented.

And like Cam said, the gun issue doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of that argument - it'd be a lot more innocous if it was just relating to economics.

[JPhillips]

I get the political damage this may cause, however, I think he was trying to make an argument for why people get caught up in single issue voting. It's an argument that makes some sense to me, but I've always had trouble understanding voters who base a national office vote on one issue only.

As to why he's talking about rural midwestern voters, that's where the election is right now. The contest at the moment isn't about the south side of Chicago or neighborhoods in San Francisco. He was likely explaining how to overcome the deficit in PA and this was a part of his answer.

[ISiddiqui]

anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations

Isn't Senator Obama the guy who is slamming NAFTA and other proposed free trade agreements? Is Obama trying to explain his frustration?

[JPhillips]

Here's a more complete transcript:

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is so we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide healthcare for every American.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

[Arles]

I get the political damage this may cause, however, I think he was trying to make an argument for why people get caught up in single issue voting.
So, then, I take it most of you that don't have an issue with Obama's comments would have had no problem with these:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to issues like allowing abortions or antipathy toward people who aren't like them.

[Dutch]

I wonder what Obama/Clinton poll numbers on FOFC are these days. I'm guessing Obama is about a 75/25 landslide at this point.

[stevew]

obama is a fucking elitist prick.

[JPhillips]

Arles: That would be stupid because people in small towns generally aren't pro-choice. If, however, you came up with a sensible pro-choice comparison, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't understand single issue voting regardless of what that single issue is.

[flere-imsaho]

Looks like another example of a quote being stripped down to a soundbite and then spun into oblivion, to me.

[CamEdwards]

Looks like another example of a quote being stripped down to a soundbite and then spun into oblivion, to me.

You should listen to the audio at the HuffPo. Granted the sound quality is pretty bad, but no, the whole quote is delivered as if Obama is talking about some foreign land. And the guffaws and bellylaughs delivered by the San Francisco crowd when Obama says these small town people are skeptical of what he's saying because he's a 46-year old black man... well, frankly it's the display of an attitude that liberals have said belongs solely to the Republicans for years now.

Look, there's a reason even some Democratic strategists are saying this was a horrible thing for Obama to say. The only see I see this getting defused is if the majority of the media accounts focus on the fact that Obama said some voters are "bitter" (as if THAT'S a newsflash) and not on his remarks about people clinging to guns, faith, and xenophobia.

[Toddzilla]

Jeez, if the "MSM" gave 10% of the attention to the asinine things Teflon John McCain says, the democrats would be running unopposed this year.

[CamEdwards]

Jeez, if the "MSM" gave 10% of the attention to the asinine things Teflon John McCain says, the democrats would be running unopposed this year.

Such as? I'm not disagreeing with you out of hand, I'm just curious as to what McCain's said recently that the media hasn't reported.

[Buccaneer]

Jeez, if the "MSM" gave 10% of the attention to the asinine things Teflon John McCain says, the democrats would be running unopposed this year.

Bitter much? :)

[Buccaneer]

Jeez, if the "MSM" gave 10% of the attention to the asinine things Teflon John McCain says, the democrats would be running unopposed this year.

No, really. You would prefer to have the MSM only focus on the asinine things the enemy has said and ignore your favorites? Right now, there is one race between two opponents and that's where the focus should be. Later in the general, then you see shit and mud fly everywhere. But even then, you would prefer to have them focus on the shit McCain will say and hae said, and not bring up anything bad for Obama?

[Buccaneer]

Barack Obama said Saturday that he didn't word his recent comments at a fundraiser "as well as he should have" but added that the back and forth that developed between Obama and fellow White House hopefuls Hillary Clinton and John McCain is "typical."

Yes he should have, and yes it is. Get used to it. Politicians (and others in leadership positions) have been crucified for saying things less inflammatory. It's part of the game that always have been with us and will always continue.

[st.cronin]

In general I like Obama, and am rooting for him to win the nomination, and those comments made me cringe. I believe he has damaged his campaign, and is perhaps showing some weakness. "Clinging to religion" is a phrase in particular that I think is really going to be harmful. MOST Americans are religious. I think this is much worse than the Reverend Wright thing.

[Toddzilla]

Such as? I'm not disagreeing with you out of hand, I'm just curious as to what McCain's said recently that the media hasn't reported.No, I'm not trying to say what McCain is saying isn't bein reported, but when he says something that completely belies his qualifications to be commander-in-chief, like not knowing the difference between the Sunni and Shi'ia (getting it wrong 3 times), the press seems (to me anyway) to give him a pass. As if he's just Old Man McCain, the Maverick, so it's to be expected.

Give me a few minutes and I'll whip up a list :)

[Vegas Vic]

The head to head polls with McCain and Obama have coalesced to about dead even: 45-45. That 90% isn't going to shift much either way, maybe a couple of points in either direction. For the most part, these people have already made up their mind. The election will be decided by the other 10%. A significant portion of these 10% are white, working class voters, and Obama already faced an uphill battle with them. With this latest comment, Obama dug his hole with those particular voters that much deeper,. When asked how damaging Obama's latest comments were on a scale of 10, several political commentators on CNN (including a democratic consultant) said it was a 10.

Going back to that 45 number for Obama. If you keep an eye on that from now until the actual results on election day, it will get higher, but in my opinion it will never get to 50. I’m not talking about the results of any one single poll, but the running poll average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) on Real Clear Politics.

[sterlingice]

Can we have a few more posts by people predisposed to not like a candidate talking about how horrible each little 24 hour news blurb that will be gone in a couple of days and feign offense to comments that we all actually understand the context of but pretend not to just to take a whack at the latest news cycle nonsense?

SI

[st.cronin]

Can we have a few more posts by people predisposed to not like a candidate talking about how horrible each little 24 hour news blurb that will be gone in a couple of days and feign offense to comments that we all actually understand the context of but pretend not to just to take a whack at the latest news cycle nonsense?

SI

I've been trying to keep an open mind. I consistently defended Obama in this thread regarding the revwright thing. You are, of course, free to disregard my opinion, but it is sincere.

[Toddzilla]

Well, my half-hour of searching came up with plenty of stories *about* John McCain saying questionable things, but no actual quotes. For example:


McCain has claimed 3 times that Iran is training Al-Qaeda.
McCain consistently mixes up Sunni and Shi'a.
McCain railed on the mortgage bailout, suggested homeowners should work 2 jobs and skip vacations to pay their way out, then less than 2 weeks later said the government should do all it can to help lenders and homeowners.
McCain was against torture, then voted against banning it.
McCain's "spiritual adviser" claims the United States is founded on destroying Islam.
Despite claiming he was new to congress and learning his way, McCain was almost 50 years old when he voted against an MLK holiday, and he continues to vote against civil rights laws.


Again, nothing specific, just my general feeling - and a failure on my part to back it up with specifics. However still, it would seem to me if Obama made these same gaffes, the media outrage would be tremendous.

[sterlingice]

I wasn't speaking specifically to yours but that was all I thought I was reading over the past 30. It just reminds me of the "undecided" voters after the 2nd or 3rd debate- there is no one truly undecided at that point, just people who pretend to so they can get on tv (or those stupid enough I don't want them voting in elections, but I think those are far fewer).

SI

[CamEdwards]

Can we have a few more posts by people predisposed to not like a candidate talking about how horrible each little 24 hour news blurb that will be gone in a couple of days and feign offense to comments that we all actually understand the context of but pretend not to just to take a whack at the latest news cycle nonsense?

SI

Probably not. If that's what you're looking for I'd try undecidedandnaivevoters.com.

[CamEdwards]

Well, my half-hour of searching came up with plenty of stories *about* John McCain saying questionable things, but no actual quotes. For example:


McCain has claimed 3 times that Iran is training Al-Qaeda.
McCain consistently mixes up Sunni and Shi'a.
McCain railed on the mortgage bailout, suggested homeowners should work 2 jobs and skip vacations to pay their way out, then less than 2 weeks later said the government should do all it can to help lenders and homeowners.
McCain was against torture, then voted against banning it.
McCain's "spiritual adviser" claims the United States is founded on destroying Islam.
Despite claiming he was new to congress and learning his way, McCain was almost 50 years old when he voted against an MLK holiday, and he continues to vote against civil rights laws.


Again, nothing specific, just my general feeling - and a failure on my part to back it up with specifics. However still, it would seem to me if Obama made these same gaffes, the media outrage would be tremendous.

The claim I'm most familiar with is McCain's mortgage plan, which I believe he announced Thursday or Friday. I did see several conservatives upset that he's basically retreated from his earlier remarks focusing on personal responsibility, and saw that Hillary had called his plan something like "luke warm leftovers" of her plan.

I'm unfamiliar with McCain's "continuing to vote against civil rights laws", which could simply mean McCain has voted against affirmative action or hate crime legislation or any number of issues that aren't really controversial.

And who is McCain's "spiritual advisor"? Are you talking about Hagee?

[sterlingice]

Probably not. If that's what you're looking for I'd try undecidedandnaivevoters.com.


Well, we have days at FOFC where it's good, insightful conversation. We can string together good conversation and bring a lot of angles together where we can sit there and bring together ideas and I learn a ton that I never would have thought of and I don't think anyone thinks of on their own.

Then there are the days where it's the lame, low hanging fruit that CNN, Fox, and whatever other morons like to glom on to that have no real useful information and it's just the same old partisan bickering. That's what this thread devolved into many pages ago.

SI

[Arles]

Arles: That would be stupid because people in small towns generally aren't pro-choice. If, however, you came up with a sensible pro-choice comparison, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't understand single issue voting regardless of what that single issue is.
I completely understand single issue voting. However, there isn't one issue that would move me personallyenough to vote that way, but I get why some do. IMO, the difference between Hillary/Obama and McCain might be an extra 3% either way on my taxes or an extra 10-14 months before troop pullbacks in Iraq. Outside of that, not much will change in the grand scheme - the economy will be similar, as will job creation and most other issues (even health care). But, if someone felt strong enough that either candidate would push strongly to limit a woman's right to choose or a person's right to own/carry guns, I could easily see them voting that way if the issue was important enough to them. Same goes for religious issues or even the environment.

[Raiders Army]

There are a lot of rednecks in PA. Don't touch their guns.

[Vegas Vic]

There are a lot of rednecks in PA. Don't touch their guns.

Pennsylvania is a complex state from a political perspective, even though many people think of it as a "blue state". James Carville describes it as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between."

[JPhillips]

I completely understand single issue voting. However, there isn't one issue that would move me personallyenough to vote that way, but I get why some do. IMO, the difference between Hillary/Obama and McCain might be an extra 3% either way on my taxes or an extra 10-14 months before troop pullbacks in Iraq. Outside of that, not much will change in the grand scheme - the economy will be similar, as will job creation and most other issues (even health care). But, if someone felt strong enough that either candidate would push strongly to limit a woman's right to choose or a person's right to own/carry guns, I could easily see them voting that way if the issue was important enough to them. Same goes for religious issues or even the environment.

We're talking about two different things. When I say single issue voters I'm referring to people who will disregard other issues and make their decision only on one factor. For example, voting for the Greenest candidate regardless of foreign or domestic policy, or voting anti-abortion regardless of all other issues.

You're talking about one issue changing the overall balance and I'm talking about one issue being the sole factor.

[BishopMVP]

Well, my half-hour of searching came up with plenty of stories *about* John McCain saying questionable things, but no actual quotes. For example:

McCain has claimed 3 times that Iran is training Al-Qaeda.
McCain consistently mixes up Sunni and Shi'a.
McCain railed on the mortgage bailout, suggested homeowners should work 2 jobs and skip vacations to pay their way out, then less than 2 weeks later said the government should do all it can to help lenders and homeowners.
McCain was against torture, then voted against banning it.
McCain's "spiritual adviser" claims the United States is founded on destroying Islam.
Despite claiming he was new to congress and learning his way, McCain was almost 50 years old when he voted against an MLK holiday, and he continues to vote against civil rights laws.
Again, nothing specific, just my general feeling - and a failure on my part to back it up with specifics. However still, it would seem to me if Obama made these same gaffes, the media outrage would be tremendous.The media isn't going to run with these now because the race and attention is for the Democratic Primary. Once that's settled, they'll focus on McCain again. There's also the fact that at least 3 of these (the last 3) haven't happened recently. Partisans love to dig up the old stuff, but the news media generally goes for fresh, new revelations.

Don't want to get this thread off track, but on your first two bullets, the difference between Sunni and Shi'a isn't exactly cut and dry, and it's really about 4th or 5th most important thing after family, tribal affiliation, region and ethnicity. And if you want to look at some crazy sources, like say CENTCOM or Gen. Petraeus' congressional testimony, you'd see that Iran has (probably) been providing training and financial support for many groups in Iraq including al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and they've even (allegedly) gone so far as to have Qods Force operatives directing tactics on the ground. But I don't want to go down that road in this thread.

[st.cronin]

The media isn't going to run with these now because the race and attention is for the Democratic Primary. Once that's settled, they'll focus on McCain again. There's also the fact that at least 3 of these (the last 3) haven't happened recently. Partisans love to dig up the old stuff, but the news media generally goes for fresh, new revelations.

Don't want to get this thread off track, but on your first two bullets, the difference between Sunni and Shi'a isn't exactly cut and dry, and it's really about 4th or 5th most important thing after family, tribal affiliation, region and ethnicity. And if you want to look at some crazy sources, like say CENTCOM or Gen. Petraeus' congressional testimony, you'd see that Iran has (probably) been providing training and financial support for many groups in Iraq including al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and they've even (allegedly) gone so far as to have Qods Force operatives directing tactics on the ground. But I don't want to go down that road in this thread.

So, what you're saying is, we should invade Iran? ;)

[Raiders Army]

Pennsylvania is a complex state from a political perspective, even though many people think of it as a "blue state". James Carville describes it as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between."

If he's saying there are racists inbetween Philly and Pittsburgh, that's true. The KKK is still big in the North Central part of the state. There's no way Obama gets any votes up there.

[Arles]

We're talking about two different things. When I say single issue voters I'm referring to people who will disregard other issues and make their decision only on one factor. For example, voting for the Greenest candidate regardless of foreign or domestic policy, or voting anti-abortion regardless of all other issues.

You're talking about one issue changing the overall balance and I'm talking about one issue being the sole factor.
No, what I'm saying is that if I am a dem in Penn and like Obama's views on health care, environment, economics and the war over McCain. I may still vote for McCain if I feel my right to carry a gun is impacted by Obama. It's not that it was 4-4 on issues and the gun one broke the tie. It's that some may be 8-0 or 7-1 with Obama on other issues but may choose McCain if they are scared enough that Obama may ban guns.

It would be the same for pro-choice conservative women who may vote democrat if a pro-life republican runs. I don't know that there are a ton of people who are like these two, but I bet there are a lot more than we think. And, as I stated above regarding the minimal actual difference between candidates, I think it's fair for someone to throw away difference in other issues if one (gun control, abortion, ..) is that important to them and they feel it is threatened.

[Toddzilla]

And who is McCain's "spiritual advisor"? Are you talking about Hagee?Rod Parsley...

"On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide.""

That just summarizes the relationship - I'll get specifics on Parlsley if you need them.

So, to keep the spiritual adviser nutjobs straight:

Rev Wright - hates white America
Rev Hagee - hates Catholics and homosexuals
Rev Parsley - hates Islam.

Who is Hillary's adviser? I'm sure that guy's got issues too :)

[Toddzilla]

I'm unfamiliar with McCain's "continuing to vote against civil rights laws", which could simply mean McCain has voted against affirmative action or hate crime legislation or any number of issues that aren't really controversial.Yeah, thats a pretty accurate summation IMO.

1983: Voted against MLK Day
1987: Supported AZ governor rescinding MLK day.
1990: Voted against the Civil Rights Act 4 times - primarily aimed at employer discrimination.

And then there are the partisan-ish votes against quotas, affirmative action, tax cuts for the rich, and the estate tax which are party-line issues.

[Buccaneer]

Rod Parsley...

"On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide.""

That just summarizes the relationship - I'll get specifics on Parlsley if you need them.

So, to keep the spiritual adviser nutjobs straight:

Rev Wright - hates white America
Rev Hagee - hates Catholics and homosexuals
Rev Parsley - hates Islam.

Who is Hillary's adviser? I'm sure that guy's got issues too :)

Without getting into the merits (or un-merits) of each of the positions, which one do you think resonates better with the voting public?

[stevew]

Pennsylvania is a complex state from a political perspective, even though many people think of it as a "blue state". James Carville describes it as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between."

Probably a fair assessment, although it's more like Philly or alabama. Pittsburgh has its big democratic regime too I suppose.

[Dutch]

Toddzilla,

If you can't stand John McCain because of these things, I don't see any possible way you could like Obama for the exact same reasons.

As for the spiritual advisor....to claim that this guy in Ohio is in McCain's inner-circle like Rev Wright is with Obama is grasping with the hopes that it sticks. It's not even in the same stratosphere. Again, nobody is giving Obama shit because Luis Farrakahn endorsed him. Rev Wright and Luis Farrakahn are two different levels of relationship to Obama (or at least I hope so, since Farrakahn and Wright go way back).

[Toddzilla]

Without getting into the merits (or un-merits) of each of the positions, which one do you think resonates better with the voting public?Better define *voting* public, please ;)

On the surface, the hating Islam probably plays better on Main Street, USA. In reality, all 3 ought to be condemned equally IMO.

[Toddzilla]

Toddzilla,

If you can't stand John McCain because of these things, I don't see any possible way you could like Obama for the exact same reasons.

As for the spiritual advisor....to claim that this guy in Ohio is in McCain's inner-circle like Rev Wright is with Obama is grasping with the hopes that it sticks. It's not even in the same stratosphere. Again, nobody is giving Obama shit because Luis Farrakahn endorsed him. Rev Wright and Luis Farrakahn are two different levels of relationship to Obama (or at least I hope so, since Farrakahn and Wright go way back).You're getting a little close to putting words in my mouth - so to clarify, my position is to illustrate how I feel McCain is getting a free-ride from the media, not to illustrate how much I "can't stand McCain".

Because, to be honest, we've all heard a thousand times about Obama and Wright, and I'd wager my post was the first time you'd ever heard about Rev. Parsley. And that isn't because McCain's relationship to Parsley isn't significant or newsworthy - it most certainly is. I haven't even brought up Richard Quinn - look that guy up.

[Arles]

I do think there is a difference when it comes to newsworthyness of known contacts. McCain has been in the public eye for over 30 years, run for president multiple times and been a staple in the senate for decades. Most people have a pretty good idea on his beliefs and character from watching him all these years. Obama pretty much burst on the scene in the past democratic convention in 2004 and has been looked on almost as a Messiah for the democratic party. There's going to be a lot more interest in seeing who he is and who he associates with than there is with someone like McCain or Hillary.

In the end, Obama will probably have the easiest time of it from the media on balance - but this personal beliefs/close friends issue is one where he may take more criticism.

[Buccaneer]

and I'd wager my post was the first time you'd ever heard about Rev. Parsley.

Nope. His name has been all over the liberal blogosphere ever since the Wright story exploded.

[JPhillips]

Obama talking about the same thing in 2004.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6oGF3cyHE7M&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6oGF3cyHE7M&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[CamEdwards]

Wow, these people have been bitter for a long time!

Interesting blog post from a Philly blogger.. with an exerpt from a NYTimes piece inside.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/post_733.html


By Saturday morning, however, Mr. Obama was trying to contain the political damage. He told audiences that what he said about people's economic circumstances was true, if inartfully expressed, but that he was not trying to play down the importance to people of religion or gun rights.

"Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Mr. Obama said.

"So I said, well, you know when you're bitter, you turn to what you can count on," he added. "So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community."

He said this was "a natural response" for people to have but "I didn't say it as well as I should have, because you know the truth is is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important."


The natural follow up, is of course, are the other things that Obama mentioned that people "cling to"... antipathy towards people of a different color, anti-free trade sentiment, etc. also traditions that are important and passed on from generation to generation?

The story also says Hillary's been playing up the faith aspect of Obama's comments, because she's been campaigning with Philly mayor Michael Nutter, who just signed five EXTREMELY controversial gun control bills. :)

[Toddzilla]

Nope. His name has been all over the liberal blogosphere ever since the Wright story exploded.Ah! Touche`! :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Does this Wright fellow realize just how much he's hurting Obama?

http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/041208wright.mp3

Just shut up already.

[Toddzilla]

There's a neat little piece on Foxnews.com where they send a reporter out into rural Pennsylvana to get reactions to Obama's latest major campaign-ending gaffe.

What they find, basically, are people agreeing with Obama...

hxxp://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/

[Buccaneer]

There's a neat little piece on Foxnews.com where they send a reporter out into rural Pennsylvana to get reactions to Obama's latest major campaign-ending gaffe.

What they find, basically, are people agreeing with Obama...

hxxp://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/

When I studied cultural and regional geography, the biggest trap was that you will ALWAYS find what you are looking for.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There's a neat little piece on Foxnews.com where they send a reporter out into rural Pennsylvana to get reactions to Obama's latest major campaign-ending gaffe.

What they find, basically, are people agreeing with Obama...

hxxp://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/

I saw that on TV. Pretty good little piece.

[ISiddiqui]

An interesting Op-ed on why Obama's comments rub the wrong way. Now, I fully admit that Bill Kristol is in no way unbiased, but its a very interesting article (and yes, I can fully predict the objections to comparing a statement by Marx to Obama's):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html?hp


April 14, 2008
<NYT_KICKER>Op-Ed Columnist</NYT_KICKER>
<NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">The Mask Slips </NYT_HEADLINE>

<NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">By WILLIAM KRISTOL (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/william_kristol/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

</NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker — a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.

My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”

Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”

Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I don’t believe the claim is true, but it’s certainly worth considering, in college classrooms and beyond.

But it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.

And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”

What’s more, he’s written eloquently in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You’d think he’d do other believers the courtesy of assuming they’ve also thought about their religious beliefs.

But Obama in San Francisco does no courtesy to his fellow Americans. Look at the other claims he makes about those small-town voters.

Obama ascribes their anti-trade sentiment to economic frustration — as if there are no respectable arguments against more free-trade agreements. This is particularly cynical, since he himself has been making those arguments, exploiting and fanning this sentiment that he decries. Aren’t we then entitled to assume Obama’s opposition to Nafta and the Colombian trade pact is merely cynical pandering to frustrated Americans?

Then there’s what Obama calls “anti-immigrant sentiment.” Has Obama done anything to address it? It was John McCain, not Obama, who took political risks to try to resolve the issue of illegal immigration by putting his weight behind an attempt at immigration reform.

Furthermore, some concerns about unchecked and unmonitored illegal immigration are surely legitimate. Obama voted in 2006 (to take just one example) for the Secure Fence Act, which was intended to control the Mexican border through various means, including hundreds of miles of border fence. Was Obama then just accommodating bigotry?

As for small-town Americans’ alleged “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”: During what Obama considers the terrible Clinton-Bush years of economic frustration, by any measurement of public opinion polling or observed behavior, Americans have become far more tolerant and respectful of minorities who are not “like them.” Surely Obama knows this. Was he simply flattering his wealthy San Francisco donors by casting aspersions on the idiocy of small-town life?

That leaves us with guns. Gun ownership has been around for an awfully long time. And people may have good reasons to, and in any case have a constitutional right to, own guns — as Obama himself has been acknowledging on the campaign trail, when he presents himself as more sympathetic to gun owners than a typical Democrat.

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?
<NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM>
</NYT_TEXT>

[Young Drachma]

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g101/grwhite2/Humor%20Pics/obama_roadrunn.jpg

[miked]

I love how she was booed today for trying to slam the comments more.

[Young Drachma]

I love how she was booed today for trying to slam the comments more.

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24109989#24109989" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

[JPhillips]

I was shocked when she said Pennsylvania and America. Is she trying to say Pennsylvania isn't part of America? What does The National Review think?

[Toddzilla]

An interesting Op-ed on why Obama's comments rub the wrong way. Now, I fully admit that Bill Kristol is in no way unbiased, but its a very interesting article (and yes, I can fully predict the objections to comparing a statement by Marx to Obama's):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html?hp
And here's a rebuttal from Andrew Sullivan - probably equally free from bias: hxxp://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/now-hes-a-godle.html

Bill Kristol, trained in the same politics as Hillary Clinton, now argues that Obama's remarks in a fundraiser q and a are the "real Obama" - and that his voluminous writing and speaking about the sincerity of his own religious faith, and of others, are presumably "masks." The reason for inferring Obama's Marxism is the following point Obama artlessly made about the way in which economic distress can alter people's tolerance for others:

"It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Is this indistinguishable from saying, along with Marx, that all religion is an obviously false consciousness caused by the alienation of the world-historical class struggle? No, it obviously isn't. It's saying that economic distress does often in human history express itself in more rigid forms of religion, more reactionary cultural identification, less tolerance of "the other." Since large swathes of human history have shown this to be true - and perfectly arguable without any materialist understanding of religion - Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He's calling him a lying, Godless communist.

You could argue, as Kristol and others hilariously will, that Lou Dobbs has no base,

that fundamentalist Christianism has no problem with "the other" in a globalized world, that dozens of state constitutional amendments banning civil marriages that had never and would never have taken place were just spirited forms of civic engagement, rather than scapegoating or politicking on resentment. You could also argue, as others legitimately will, that spasms of economic distress and social discontent are unconnected. Hey: Weimar had nothing to do with Hitler. But Kristol is doing something much more pernicious: he is saying that Obama is faking faith, that his very profession of faith is a "mask" that is slipping, and that Kristol is the person to determine whose faith is genuine and who is a fraud.

A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his own faith. That's where they've gone to already. And it's only the middle of April. What are they so scared of?

[CamEdwards]

First off, can I be amused at Christopher Hitchens calling Andrew Sullivan a "lesbian" the other day? Because that amused me greatly.

Now, here's where Sullivan's off base. What Kristol actually wrote was:

What’s more, he’s written eloquently in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You’d think he’d do other believers the courtesy of assuming they’ve also thought about their religious beliefs.


And Sullivan's response:

Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He's calling him a lying, Godless communist.

Um, no. Sullivan's argument really falls apart there, but the fact that he neglects to even mention Kristol's larger discussion certainly doesn't do anything to bolster it.

Another example. Sullivan says:

But Kristol is doing something much more pernicious: he is saying that Obama is faking faith, that his very profession of faith is a "mask" that is slipping, and that Kristol is the person to determine whose faith is genuine and who is a fraud.

But here's what Kristol wrote about Obama's "mask":

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And again, the immediate paragraph preceding that was Kristol discussing the gun ownership. As a rebuttal goes, Sullivan's really leaves a lot to be desired.

[ISiddiqui]

Cam beat me too it. Sullivan is making WAAAY too many leaps in logic in evaluating Kristol's article. Kristol's main point isn't really addressed by Sullivan.

[JPhillips]

Thank God a bunch of rich, Washington and New York columnists are setting me straight about small town America. They're much more informative than my experience growing up in rural Ohio.

[ISiddiqui]

So you speak for all of Ohio? I'm guessing it is you we have to blame for voting for Bush in 2004, giving him the state, then?

[JPhillips]

DId I say I speak for all of Ohio? I just find it ironic that a bunch of grossly paid newspaper and television prima donnas who have never lived outside of a major city are suddenly the arbiters of life in small town America. Bill Kristol doesn't know shit about about life in the rural midwest. This is just a convenient way to play the same partisan attack game he plays against every Democrat.

Hillary supporters should be very careful about their new found friends on the right. Here's an insight, they really don't like you and will stop at nothing to destroy you if Hillary is the nominee.

[ISiddiqui]

And yet, a lot of people in the midwest and small town America like and respect Bill Kristol.

I find this type of argument akin to saying men can't have a valid argument on abortion because its not their bodies that they are deciding upon.

[Raiders Army]

Hillary had better remember her comments about it's okay to have guns and enjoy them. Get the votes any way you can, and then support gun control.

[JPhillips]

I'd wager the percentage of people in small towns who even recognize Kristol's name is minimal. The vast majority of the people I grew up with and live around now don't subscribe to either the Weekly Standard or The New York Times. He's the elite, writing political opinion for a very good living and hobnobbing on the Washington cocktail circuit. He's certainly entitled to his opinion about small towns, but his column is nothing more than his typical hit piece. He certainly has no insight into the lives of small town Americans.

Using Kristol, who has quite literally been wrong about every fucking thing he's ever written, as a way to attack a fellow Democrat is shameful.

[Young Drachma]

I found it really ironic that Bill Kristol was giving Obama crap for "not having done anything" when the only reason he's where he is because his father was Irving Kristol. (the godfather of the neoconservative movement) (Unless you think there is some merit to having been Chief of Staff for Vice-President Dan freaking Quayle.) There are plenty of well-reasoned ways to dismiss Obama as a cheap suit built on marketing and PR prowess, rather than substance, but...Kristol's piece wasn't a particularly good example of that.

[Passacaglia]

So is he the godbrother of the neoconservative movement?

[Young Drachma]

So is he the godbrother of the neoconservative movement?

The Godson, then.

[Passacaglia]

The Godson, then.

Nah, I think he has to be at least the halfgodbrother. If his father is the NCM's godfather, they would be godbrothers.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not sure where Harshaw or Kaus are from, but they seemingly have a similar opinion:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/bitter-fruit/index.html?ref=opinion


“Fumble” and “gaffe” have specific connotations, ones that likely seem inappropriate to those (and by “those,” I mean Slate’s Mickey Kaus) who have long been alarmed by Obama’s tendency to ascribe economic motivations for some voters’ social beliefs.

Lost amid the talk about racial and religious conciliation in Obama’s March 17 speech in Philadelphia (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html) was his argument that “anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition” and that “these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed.”

Kaus’s response at the time was sharp (http://www.slate.com/id/2186845/#waitingforpivot): “It’s hard to believe we’re about to nominate a Democrat who doesn’t acknowledge the lesson of the 1990s — that voters are worried about issues like welfare because they are worried about welfare, not because ‘welfare’ is a surrogate for ‘lack of national health insurance.‘ ” [emphasis by Kaus]

[Young Drachma]

Obama needs to release an ad that talks about his history in ways other than how he globetrotted and instead how he earned scholarships to good schools, how his family was poor and how if it weren't for the promise of America he'd be nothing. If John McCain's narrative is "I'm married to a rich chick and my family's business is being war admirals" and Hillary's is "I married well and that gave me lots of experience" then..I don't understand why he's not beating home the point that he's NOTHING like these people and that it has nothing to do with race.

Who are these people running his campaign?

[JPhillips]

But anger over welfare and affirmative action did help to create the Reagan coalition. Are we not allowed to say that anymore?

[ISiddiqui]

But anger over welfare and affirmative action did help to create the Reagan coalition. Are we not allowed to say that anymore?

You are missing his point... ie, the second quotes part, where attention to welfare was distracting from other aspects. This is why Democrats have failed recently (aside from Bill Clinton who actually "got it"), because they seem to think these social issues are simply Republicans trumping up bitterness over economic losses and directing it somewhere else.

As the ed says, people were upset over welfare because they were upset over the concept of welfare (part of the concept of cradle to grave government caretaking), NOT because of bitterness over other economic issues.

[JPhillips]

The small town rubes don't understand how much they've been insulted. Three polls out today show no little or no movement from polls taken before Obama's comments.

I guess the elites need to work harder at convincing people Obama's an elitist.

[JPhillips]

Isddiqui: I'll grant that some of the frustration over welfare was due to the nature of welfare, but it absolutely was caught up in a general anger over economic conditions. Welfare has never been that big of an expenditure, but it recieved oversized attention due to the way it was demogogued. This year the entire social safety net, excluding Medicaid, is roughly equal to the service on the national debt.

Saying people don't always like welfare and that the welfare issue became bigger than it's cost merited aren't mutually exclusive. Remember the whole "welfare queen" idea?

[CamEdwards]

I was debating about whether or not to post it, but I'm hoping to elicit more snark from JPhillips. :)

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/id_hesitate_to_say_obamas_a_marxist/


I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

And I know, Joe Lieberman's supporting John McCain, blah blah. I just found the awkward pause and "I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist" comment. It amused me greatly. :)

[Young Drachma]

Lieberman is a turncoat if there ever was one. Obama campaigned for his insurgent campaign and this is how he repays him? Wow. I hope Harry Reid strips him of his chairmanship at the end of this term. He's really lost his mind. And this from a non-Dem, I just think...I can understand being bitter that you managed to lose a primary and then ran on the "name you know" to get elected, but...this guy is off his rocker more than ever. '04 had a worse effect on him than we initially believed.

[ISiddiqui]

Isddiqui: I'll grant that some of the frustration over welfare was due to the nature of welfare, but it absolutely was caught up in a general anger over economic conditions. Welfare has never been that big of an expenditure, but it recieved oversized attention due to the way it was demogogued. This year the entire social safety net, excluding Medicaid, is roughly equal to the service on the national debt.

Saying people don't always like welfare and that the welfare issue became bigger than it's cost merited aren't mutually exclusive. Remember the whole "welfare queen" idea?

Some of it was racial motivated, of course, but I'd bet good money that folks like JIMG and other conservatives in suburban/rural America hated the idea of the government supporting folks. There is an idea of what government should do for the people, and to a lot of people in this country, welfare comes close to crossing that line.

[JPhillips]

I agree completely, but I also think the issue was put to the forefront in a way that was designed to split voters. Some of the same politicians railing about welfare are also the ones who don't have a problem with exempting overseas contractors from fraud regulations. Welfre was never the massive expenditure that it was portrayed as.

[ISiddiqui]

I agree completely, but I also think the issue was put to the forefront in a way that was designed to split voters. Some of the same politicians railing about welfare are also the ones who don't have a problem with exempting overseas contractors from fraud regulations. Welfre was never the massive expenditure that it was portrayed as.

I'm thinking this is part of the problem. You are trying to frame it in terms of "massive expenditure", but a ton of people didn't care how much it cost, just that it was wrong. Like I'm sure there are loads of people out there who don't care if its only 1 illegal immigrant who comes in every year, they still believe it to be morally wrong practice.

[JPhillips]

On an individual level you're right. My point is that it was exploited by politicians who knew it wasn't the cause of budget deficits. Just because some people oppose it on ideological grounds doesn't mean it can't be exploited. I can't find them now, but I remember a number of polls where people grossly overestimated the cost of welfare. The sizable amount of people who believe in a small, temporary assistance program were targeted with misleading and false claims designed to peal off some of them so that they would weigh welfare reform higher in their voting criteria.

[ISiddiqui]

I think what I'm getting at is that trying to say that implying people's religious faith and belief in gun ownership rights are due to economic bitterness being exploited by a political party is highly, HIGHLY offensive to people who actually do have religious faith and belief in gun ownerhip rights. Its kind of like saying to them that those things are merely because the Republicans can tricked you.

[JPhillips]

That's not what he said. And it apparently isn't that offensive to actual undecided Pennsylvanians, as the polls didn't budge. The most "offended" people have been Hillary supporters and conservative talking heads.

[ISiddiqui]

That's not what he said. And it apparently isn't that offensive to actual undecided Pennsylvanians, as the polls didn't budge. The most "offended" people have been Hillary supporters and conservative talking heads.

That's what he implied. I think based on his statement, that's probably what he actually believed.

And, really, it doesn't necessarily matter to "undecided Pennsylvanians". Where it'll really manifest is against McCain. After all, the rural, small town folk in the Democratic primaries are going to be for Clinton more anyway. It may affect the undecideds in the general election, however... as it will be part of a concerted effort to portray Obama as an elitist. Hillary doesn't have enough time to do that (and really, Hillary going after someone else for being an elitist liberal won't go over well).

Oh, and as for the Penn polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

They seem to be interestingly all over the place.

On the 14th, you had the Susquahanna poll showing Clinton winning by 4 and the ARG poll showing Clinton winning by 20.
Today, the Quinnipiac shows Clinton winning by 6, but the SurveyUSA has her up by 14 and the Rasmussen has her up by 9.

[JPhillips]

Hillary said that Pennsylvania wasn't part of America. At least that's what she implied and that's probably what she actually believes. John McCain said that he loves seeing Americans killed in wars. At least that's what he implied and that's probably what he actually believes.

This parsing of statements and invention of implications and beliefs is ridiculous. And I don't care what Republicans will do in the general. It isn't shocking to me that they're going to try to portray Obama as an out of touch liberal elitist. Guess what, they'll do the same with Hillary.

[path12]

Its kind of like saying to them that those things are merely because the Republicans can tricked you.

But isn't that true to an extent? It's pretty much accepted wisdom that many blue collar folks voting Republican are voting against their own interests in favor of the "strong America" and "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" arguments, right?

[JPhillips]

The poll raw numbers don't matter in relation to Obama's comments. What's important is the movement of the polls from before to after. A case can be made that Obama was closing the gap and that his comments stopped that momentum, but in terms of numbers, the polls didn't budge from pre-comments to post-comments.

Hillary is going to win PA, probably by high single or low double digits, but at this point there is no evidence that Obama's comments are making a measurable impact.

[Toddzilla]

And I know, Joe Lieberman's supporting John McCain, blah blah. I just found the awkward pause and "I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist" comment. It amused me greatly. :)Pretty savvy way for Holy Joe to handle it, indeed.

Bot hooo-boy will it be fun, after the democrats take a super-majority in the senate this fall, watching Harry Reid strip Lieberman of his committee positions and not allow him to caucus with the democrats.

:p

[ISiddiqui]

Hillary said that Pennsylvania wasn't part of America. At least that's what she implied and that's probably what she actually believes. John McCain said that he loves seeing Americans killed in wars. At least that's what he implied and that's probably what he actually believes.

All joking aside, I actually do believe that what slipped from Obama was what he actually believes and that's what those words implied.

But isn't that true to an extent? It's pretty much accepted wisdom that many blue collar folks voting Republican are voting against their own interests in favor of the "strong America" and "pull yourselves up by the bootstraps" arguments, right?

They are voting against their own ECONOMIC interests! Economics isn't everything. There are very, very strong social interests and blue collar folks voting Republican are definitely not voting against those. It's one of the problems I have with the Democrats. They want to blame these blue collar Republicans for voting against "their interests" when they don't even see what interests they are actually voting for.

[ISiddiqui]

Pretty savvy way for Holy Joe to handle it, indeed.

Bot hooo-boy will it be fun, after the democrats take a super-majority in the senate this fall, watching Harry Reid strip Lieberman of his committee positions and not allow him to caucus with the democrats.

:p

So you want the Democrats to act like the Republicans and assume they'll never lose the majority? Pretty short-sighted if you ask me. They may need that vote at some point soon... and Joe does vote on most things with the Dems.

[Toddzilla]

First off, can I be amused at Christopher Hitchens calling Andrew Sullivan a "lesbian" the other day? Because that amused me greatly.

Now, here's where Sullivan's off base. What Kristol actually wrote was:


And Sullivan's response:

Um, no. Sullivan's argument really falls apart there, but the fact that he neglects to even mention Kristol's larger discussion certainly doesn't do anything to bolster it.

Another example. Sullivan says:

But here's what Kristol wrote about Obama's "mask":

And again, the immediate paragraph preceding that was Kristol discussing the gun ownership. As a rebuttal goes, Sullivan's really leaves a lot to be desired.Rats - can't quote a quote.

Suffice to say, I didn't agree with your characterization of either Kristol's message or Sullivan's rebuttal in the slightest (SHOCKER! :)). I'm guessing it boils down to how much you believe Obama's clarification of his "bitter" statement.

Personally, I take Obama at his word, that he wasn't putting people down for clinging to (guns, religion, American Idol), rather pointing out that when the system fails you, sometimes that's all that's left. So when Kristol tries to paint Obama as mocking people who "cling to religion" it's deliberatley misguided. Sullivan here is being a drama queen for sure ("lying, godless communist"), but his gist is right on - the comparison of Obama and Marx in terms of how they feel about religion and the population's dependence on it couldn't be more different and the attempt to tie them together is deliberately and inflammatory.

I think Sullivan hit Kristol hard on all the points Kristol tired to make - YMMV.

[path12]

They are voting against their own ECONOMIC interests! Economics isn't everything. There are very, very strong social interests and blue collar folks voting Republican are definitely not voting against those.

True, I meant economic interests but I should have specified that. Though to an extent the social arguments are sometimes, shall we say.....simplified and the actual positions of the parties distorted somewhat.

[ISiddiqui]

True, I meant economic interests but I should have specified that. Though to an extent the social arguments are sometimes, shall we say.....simplified and the actual positions of the parties distorted somewhat.

A little bit. But they are still important things. I mean, the Democrats aren't going to ban guns or anything, but they will put more legislation for gun ownership, which will make things a bit more onerous. And there are some Dems in positions of power who do want to ban them outright. That's a bit scary to those people, even if they realize it'll never actually come to pass (then again, their voting for people who believe contrary may be the reason it doesn't come to pass).

[Young Drachma]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/04/12/roommate_0413.html

[Arles]

gun issue to the right is similar to the abortion issue to the left. Just a mild threat can really rally votes.

[ISiddiqui]

Speaking of interests, I think this NY Times commentary more eloquently says what I've been trying to.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/right-fight-wrong-word/


<SMALL class=post-date id=day_15>April 15, 2008, 6:08 pm</SMALL> Right Fight, Wrong Word

By Dan Schnur (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/author/dschnur/)

<!-- end post-info -->
Dan Schnur was the national communications director for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2000. (Full biography. (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/contributor-dan-schnur/))

Ever since Barack Obama’s comments about small-town Pennsylvania voters first surfaced in the public sphere late last week, the scions of the political community have talked of little else. Both the Clinton and McCain campaigns focused on the word “bitter” — allowing Senator Obama’s supporters to engage in a largely semantic discussion about whether economically disadvantaged Americans were “bitter” or “angry” or “frustrated.” But this is a meaningless series of distinctions even in this super-charged political environment. It’s safe to say that people without jobs are not particularly happy about that situation, regardless of the adverb in question.

The more important issue than Senator Obama’s choice of words, though, is the world view underneath them. By using a voter’s adverse economic circumstances to rationalize his cultural beliefs, Barack Obama has reintroduced what has been a defining question in American politics for more than a generation: Why do so many working-class voters cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions?

These voters — known as “the silent majority” in the 1970s, as “Reagan Democrats” in the ’80s, and as “values voters” during the last two election cycles — have long been one of the most sought-after prizes in national elections. But with the exception of the occasional Southerner on the ticket, Democratic presidential candidates and their advisers have been continually vexed by the unwillingness of blue-collar Americans to more reliably vote their economic interests.

In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank articulates essentially the same case that Senator Obama has made in recent days. Mr. Frank complains that Republicans have deceived blue-collar Kansans — and their colleagues in other states — into voting against their own economic interests by distracting them into a conversation about traditional values and cultural concerns. Both Senator Obama and Mr. Frank seem to be saying that economic policy should be more important to voters than social and cultural questions.

For many people, that’s certainly true. But there are plenty of other voters who don’t necessarily base their votes solely on jobs and taxes, and many of them are quite financially successful. They have determined their political affiliations largely as a result of the same continuing battles over abortion, guns and same-sex marriage that have drawn so many working-class voters to Republican candidates over the years. The only difference is the side of the fight they’ve chosen. It’s hard to argue that a wealthy pro-choice Democrat is any less of a values voter than a pro-life construction worker who votes Republican.

Perhaps Mr. Frank’s book would benefit from a sequel. We could call it: “What’s the Matter With the Upper East Side?” or perhaps “What’s the Matter With Beverly Hills?” or “What’s the Matter With Martha’s Vineyard?” The answer is that there’s nothing wrong with these voters at all, nothing more than there is anything inappropriate about blue-collar Kansans or Pennsylvanians who have decided that economic issues are not the most important influencers on their vote.

The mistake that Senator Obama and Mr. Frank both make is that they assume that only the values of culturally conservative voters require justification. An environmentally conscious, pro-stem cell bond trader who votes Democratic is lauded for selflessness and open-mindedness. A gun-owning, church-going factory worker who supports Republican candidates, on the other hand, must be the victim of partisan deception. This double standard is at the heart of the Democratic challenge in national elections: rather than diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort, a more experienced and open-minded candidate would recognize and respect the foundations on which these values are based.

So the more problematic language choice for Senator Obama was not the word “bitter,” it was his use of the word “cling,” which he seemed to use as a pejorative to describe why small-town voters prioritize their opinions on cultural matters like religion and gun ownership over economic issues. And when he lists religion and guns in the same sentence as his reference to racist and anti-immigrant sentiments, it becomes much more difficult for him to establish the emotional connection with working-class voters that he has forged with the more upscale and academically oriented portions of the Democratic primary electorate.

The current uproar is unlikely to prevent Senator Obama from winning his party’s nomination, although it certainly breathes new life into the Clinton campaign and probably extends the primary battle that much further into the summer. But like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. controversy that preceded it, Senator Obama’s tendency to erect cultural barriers between himself and this critical block of swing voters will become more of an obstacle in a general election campaign.

[JPhillips]

Except multiple polls in PA and the Gallup tracking poll have shown no effect from Obama's comments. The only people offended are conservative pundits and Hillary supporters. I expected this to hurt him, but as of today there isn't any evidence that rural Americans feel any anger towards Obama.

[ISiddiqui]

Except multiple polls in PA and the Gallup tracking poll have shown no effect from Obama's comments. The only people offended are conservative pundits and Hillary supporters. I expected this to hurt him, but as of today there isn't any evidence that rural Americans feel any anger towards Obama.

Like Schur said, this will likely raise its head in the general. It won't stop him from the nomination.

But, it isn't just conservative pundits or Hillary supporters. Maureen Dowd has been in the Obama camp for a while and she wasn't all that pleased:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/opinion/16dowd.html?hp


I’m not bitter.

I’m not writing this just because I grew up in a house with a gun, a strong Catholic faith, an immigrant father, brothers with anti-illegal immigrant sentiments and a passion for bowling. (My bowling trophy was one of my most cherished possessions.)

My family morphed from Kennedy Democrats into Reagan Republicans not because they were angry, but because they felt more comfortable with conservative values. Members of my clan sometimes were overly cloistered. But they weren’t bitter; they were bonding.

They went to church every Sunday because it was part of their identity, not because they needed a security blanket.

Behind closed doors in San Francisco, elitism’s epicenter, Barack Obama showed his elitism, attributing the emotional, spiritual and cultural values of working-class, “lunch pail” Pennsylvanians to economic woes.

The last few weeks have not been kind to Hillary, but the endless endgame has not been kind to the Wonder Boy either. Obama comes across less like a candidate in Pennsylvania than an anthropologist in Borneo.

His mother got her Ph.D. in anthropology, studying the culture of Indonesia. And as Obama has courted white, blue-collar voters in “Deer Hunter” and “Rocky” country, he has often appeared to be observing the odd habits of the colorful locals, resisting as the natives try to fatten him up like a foie gras goose, sampling Pennsylvania beer in a sports bar with his tie tight, awkwardly accepting bowling shoes as a gift from Bob Casey, examining the cheese and salami at the Italian Market here as intriguing ethnic artifacts, purchasing Utz Cheese Balls at a ShopRite in East Norriton and quizzing the women working in a chocolate factory about whether they could possibly really like the sugary doodads.

He hasn’t pulled a John Kerry and asked for a Philly cheese steak with Swiss yet, but he has maintained a regal “What do the simple folk do to help them escape when they’re blue?” bearing, unable to even feign Main Street cred. But Hillary did when she belted down a shot of Crown Royal whiskey with gusto at Bronko’s in Crown Point, Ind.

Just as he couldn’t knock down the bowling pins, he can’t knock down Annie Oakley or “the girl in the race,” as her husband called her Tuesday — the self-styled blue-collar heroine who reluctantly revealed a $100 million fortune partially built on Bill’s shady connections.

Even when Hillary’s campaign collapsed around her and her husband managed to revive the bullets over Bosnia, Obama has still not been able to marshal a knockout blow — or even come up with a knockout economic speech that could expand his base of support.

Even as Hillary grows weaker, her reputation for ferocity grows stronger. A young woman in the audience at a taping of “The Colbert Report” at Penn Tuesday night asked Stephen Colbert during a warm-up: “Are you more afraid of bears or Hillary Clinton?”

Even though Democratic elders worry that the two candidates will terminally bloody each other, they each seem to be lighting their own autos-da-fé.

At match points, when Hillary fights like a cornered raccoon, Obama retreats into law professor mode. The elitism that Americans dislike is not about family money or connections — J.F.K. and W. never would have been elected without them. In the screwball movie genre that started during the last Depression, there was a great tradition of the millionaire who was cool enough to relate to the common man — like Cary Grant’s C.K. Dexter Haven in “The Philadelphia Story.”

What turns off voters is the detached egghead quality that they tend to equate with a wimpiness, wordiness and a lack of action — the same quality that got the professorial and superior Adlai Stevenson mocked by critics as Adelaide. The new attack line for Obama rivals is that he’s gone from J.F.K. to Dukakis. (Just as Dukakis chatted about Belgian endive, Obama chatted about Whole Foods arugula in Iowa.)

Obama did not grow up in cosseted circumstances. “Now when is the last time you’ve seen a president of the United States who just paid off his loan debt?” Michelle Obama asked Tuesday at Haverford College, referring to Barack’s student loans while speaking in the shadow of the mansions depicted in “The Philadelphia Story.”

But his exclusive Hawaiian prep school and years in the Ivy League made him a charter member of the elite, along with the academic experts he loves to have in the room. As Colbert pointed out, the other wonky Ivy League lawyer in the primary just knows how to condescend better.
Michelle did her best on “The Colbert Report” Tuesday to shoo away the aroma of elitism.

Growing up, she said: “We had four spoons. And then my father got a raise at the plant and we got five spoons.”
<NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_UPDATE_BOTTOM></NYT_TEXT>

[Passacaglia]

It’s safe to say that people without jobs are not particularly happy about that situation, regardless of the adverb in question.

Adverb?

[sterlingice]

Speaking of interests, I think this NY Times commentary more eloquently says what I've been trying to.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/right-fight-wrong-word/

I do like Thomas Frank's book getting some "love". However, the silly claims that a sequel should be called "“What’s the Matter With the Upper East Side?”" is kindof silly since he's from Kansas. ;)

SI

[BrianD]

Speaking of interests, I think this NY Times commentary more eloquently says what I've been trying to.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/right-fight-wrong-word/

The more important issue than Senator Obama’s choice of words, though, is the world view underneath them. By using a voter’s adverse economic circumstances to rationalize his cultural beliefs, Barack Obama has reintroduced what has been a defining question in American politics for more than a generation: Why do so many working-class voters cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions?

These voters — known as “the silent majority” in the 1970s, as “Reagan Democrats” in the ’80s, and as “values voters” during the last two election cycles — have long been one of the most sought-after prizes in national elections. But with the exception of the occasional Southerner on the ticket, Democratic presidential candidates and their advisers have been continually vexed by the unwillingness of blue-collar Americans to more reliably vote their economic interests.

In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank articulates essentially the same case that Senator Obama has made in recent days. Mr. Frank complains that Republicans have deceived blue-collar Kansans — and their colleagues in other states — into voting against their own economic interests by distracting them into a conversation about traditional values and cultural concerns. Both Senator Obama and Mr. Frank seem to be saying that economic policy should be more important to voters than social and cultural questions.

Seems to me that the rich elite politicians (on both sides) don't understand that it is not a universal American goal to become rich and elite. Lots of people are satisfied with their current economic situation even if other people don't think they should be. Don't we all know tons of people who live a very modest lifestyle but choose not to work overtime or start job-hopping because they value their free time and time with the family more than the extra money they could be making? "Economic problems" don't make people cling to cultural ideal since people who are comfortable don't necessarily consider them economic problems.

[JPhillips]

It's so fucking stupid that discussions about Whole Foods and drinking shots of Crown Royal are seen as more important than policy positions. But it does help substantiate my belief that the Presidential election comes down to little more than likability.

[Toddzilla]

It's so fucking stupid that discussions about Whole Foods and drinking shots of Crown Royal are seen as more important than policy positions. But it does help substantiate my belief that the Presidential election comes down to little more than likability.+1

When polls show more people think the guy who suggests eliminating the federal tax on gasoline during the summer is the most qualified candidate to handle the economy, it makes policy seem pretty damned inconsequential.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL!

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon041508.gif

[Noop]

Is it me or does it seem like they are attacking Obama?

[Noop]

Obama is looking very weak right now and in my opinion has lost the election tonight.

[Dr. Sak]

Is it me or does it seem like they are attacking Obama?

I agree totally.

Also I am watching this debate because i am interested in what these two have to say and how they think they would make the country better. I wont lie if I were to vote today i would vote McCain, but i still could be swayed. But they havent talked about any issues yet.

All they talk about is what Obama's pastor said...or what Hillary said about being under sniper fire. I dont give a fuck about that stuff...talk about the issues. What the hell do you stand for and what would you do to implement it to make this a better country.

Am I wrong in wanting them to talk about actual issues?

[Noop]

Am I wrong in wanting them to talk about actual issues?

Obama made mention to the same thing. He said that people are making big deals over not important issues. I agree with him in that respect but he doesn't look as cool as he has in his other appearances. They have kept him on the defensive the whole night.

[Noop]

As far as Iraq goes I like Obama's answer alittle bit more then I like Hillary's...

[Dr. Sak]

I agree with you Noop, but I'm not keen on his either.

I am glad that they've finally started talking about the important issues, only an hour into the debate.

[Noop]

Why are they discussing Israel? This is an American election not the Israel election.

[Dr. Sak]

Dola...this is a little off topic but still interesting. We (The US) say that Israel is our strongest "alley" in the region. But I attended a security briefing today that said that Israel is one of the top 5 threats against the USA as far as Espionage goes.

[Noop]

I like Hillary's answer a little bit better but I still don't like the fact we are discussing Israel.

[Dr. Sak]

What is her website again?

[Noop]

What is her website again?

I am not sure if you are joking or not but I will say not...

www.hillaryclinton.com/ (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/www.hillaryclinton.com/)

[Dr. Sak]

I was joking but thanks :)

[sterlingice]

It's a smart quip- "hey, all, we have answers- just go to the website". American viewer: "Uh, I'll do it later. She probably has real answers"

SI

[Noop]

Well Hillary is looking a whole lot better in my eyes, atleast some of what she is saying is logical.

[Noop]

So now the host is attacking Obama as well?

[sterlingice]

This last little back and forth was great. However, on the policy issue of SS, Clinton was, well, vague at beest.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dola...this is a little off topic but still interesting. We (The US) say that Israel is our strongest "alley" in the region. But I attended a security briefing today that said that Israel is one of the top 5 threats against the USA as far as Espionage goes.

Hmm ... the two things wouldn't necessarily be mutually exclusive I guess.

[Raiders Army]

Neither one is electable.

[Logan]

Logan, if you're reading, that means that they could be BOTH at the same time. ;)

MY BRAIN HURTS!

[CamEdwards]

Obama's statement on capital gains taxes, if I'm reading the paraphrases correctly (haven't seen a transcript), is stunning. Even though cutting the rates produces more revenue, we should raise the rates as a matter of "fairness"?

[Raiders Army]

Go to her website, HILLARYCLINTON.COM

[Young Drachma]

Obama's statement on capital gains taxes, if I'm reading the paraphrases correctly (haven't seen a transcript), is stunning. Even though cutting the rates produces more revenue, we should raise the rates as a matter of "fairness"?

He wants to raise it back to the levels of the Clinton era. So it's not as if he's proposing to raise it to levels we haven't seen before. I don't agree with it and it's one of the main reasons I could never vote for him (or at least, one of the one's I always cite for my 'hope' sipping friends) but...that's his position.

[Arles]

Obama's statement on capital gains taxes, if I'm reading the paraphrases correctly (haven't seen a transcript), is stunning. Even though cutting the rates produces more revenue, we should raise the rates as a matter of "fairness"?
Ah, class envy rears it's familiar head:

http://www.irony.com/images/article%20images/classconsciousness_big.jpg

[ISiddiqui]

Well, currently, long term capital gains (held for over 1 year) are taxed less than income tax levels, even though selling investments ends up doing the same thing as getting more money from your employer. So I can see the fairness argument (tax even long term gains as income).

[CamEdwards]

Well, currently, long term capital gains (held for over 1 year) are taxed less than income tax levels, even though selling investments ends up doing the same thing as getting more money from your employer. So I can see the fairness argument (tax even long term gains as income).

But why should fairness factor into it? Shouldn't the government be concerned about getting the most revenue to pay for programs?

[ISiddiqui]

But why should fairness factor into it? Shouldn't the government be concerned about getting the most revenue to pay for programs?

A ton of government programs are based on fairness. Asking why should fairness factor into it is a being a bit silly, IMO (now argueing that it shouldn't is another thing entirely).

And the question becomes will lowering the capital gains tax actually increase revenue?

[Arles]

After watching the debate, I actually found Hillary likeable. :eek:

As to the capital gains issue, it's a little like spitting in the wind. Raising it in a pending downturn is a little risky. If you want to raise taxes, I would look at marginal rates before capital gains.