Cheney's Advice, Krugman's Law and Obama's First Year
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then Barack Obama has been in the fast lane when it comes to bipartisanship. Now one year into his presidency, his near-pathological obsession with consensus has only served to resurrect a moribund GOP while leaving his agenda and his own party teetering on the brink.
It didn't have to be this way. Not if Barack Obama had understood Krugman's Law and heeded the lessons of Dick Cheney.
Listened to Cheney, that is, not on national security, but on domestic politics.
Following the disputed 2000 election, the Bush-Cheney transition team prepared to assume the White House without either a popular vote mandate or dominant majorities in Congress. But while the mainstream media consensus concluded that a "weakened" President Bush would have to govern from the center and "build bridges to the opposition," Dick Cheney had a different idea. Especially when it came to the Republican ticket's radical plan of tax cuts for the economy, Cheney insisted:
"We don't negotiate with ourselves."
As Barton Gellman details in his book, Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, Dick Cheney made it abundantly clear that the Bush administration would put pedal to the metal in pursuit of its radical agenda. In a series of media appearances that December, Cheney proceeded as if the Florida recount and Bush v. Gore had never happened.
His December 3, 2000 exchange with the late Tim Russert on Meet the Press is particularly telling:
RUSSERT: Governor Bush and you campaigned on a platform of a $1.3 trillion tax cut. Now that the Senate is 50-50, Democrats-Republicans, and the Republicans control the House by eight or nine votes, won't you have to scale down your tax cut in order to pass it? [...] But, in reality, with a 50-50 Senate and a close, close, small majority in the House, you're going to have to have a moderate, mainstream, centrist governance, aren't you?
CHENEY: Oh, I think so. [...] But I think there's no reason in the world why we can't do exactly what Governor Bush campaigned on.
Two weeks later, following the controversial Supreme Court decision which made George W. Bush the 43rd President, Cheney made his case even more forcefully on Face the Nation:
"As President-elect Bush has made very clear, he ran on a particular platform that was very carefully developed. It's his program, it's his agenda, and we have no intention at all of backing off of it. It's why we got elected.
So we're going to aggressively pursue tax changes, tax reform, tax cuts, because it's important to do so. [...] The suggestion that somehow, because this was a close election, we should fundamentally change our beliefs, I just think is silly."
When Gloria Borger interrupted to object that "with all due respect, the Democrats are saying that this administration cannot proceed as the Reagan administration did, for example, with a large tax bill, because you don't have the mandate that a Ronald Reagan.," Cheney fired back:
"There is no reason in the world, and I simply don't buy the notion, that somehow we come to office now as a, quote, 'weakened president.' [...] We've got a good program, and we're going to pursue it."
Which is exactly what transpired. By May 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney had their $1.35 trillion tax cut, courtesy of precisely the strategy Borger ridiculed as " cherry pick[ing] one or two Democrats here and there and get them to sign on to whatever tax bill you have."
But eight years later, Barack Obama did not follow the Bush-Cheney example.
As it turned out, the deadly combination of Obama's hands-off approach to legislation and unending appeasement of Republicans determined to destroy him was both futile and counterproductive.
The $787 billion stimulus package was unnecessarily laden with tax breaks and watered down, much smaller than the $1.2 trillion his team believed it needed to be. And for all of Obama's outreach to Republicans, they thanked him with zero votes in the House and near-total opposition in the Senate. And as Bill Kristol confidently predicted in February, it only served to mobilize the Party of No for the future:
"But the loss of credibility, even if they jam it through, really hurts them on the next, on the next piece of legislation. Clinton got through his tax increases in '93, it was such a labor and he had to twist so many arms to do it and he became so unpopular...
...That it made, that it made it so much easier to then defeat his health care initiative. So, it's very important for Republicans who think they're going to have to fight later on on health care, fight later on maybe on some of the bank bailout legislation, fight later on on all kinds of issues. It's very important for them, I think, not just to stay united at this time, though that's important, but to make the arguments."
Instead of kicking them when they were down, Obama offered bruised and battered Republicans a hand up. In return, they gutted his stimulus program and stonewalled his health care plan. As this week's disaster in Massachusetts showed, Obama's good intentions helped a flat-lining Republican Party get off the mat and imperil the Democratic program.
Nobel Prize winning economist and New York Times columnist saw in all coming. On January 5th, 2009, he predicted what would come to pass in an early statement of Krugman's Law. For all of his goodwill, White House meetings, compromises and lofty rhetoric, the new President would - and did - get the back of the hand from Republicans:
"Look, Republicans are not going to come on board. Make 40% of the package tax cuts, they'll demand 100%. Then they'll start the thing about how you can't cut taxes on people who don't pay taxes (with only income taxes counting, of course) and demand that the plan focus on the affluent. Then they'll demand cuts in corporate taxes. And Mitch McConnell is already saying that state and local governments should get loans, not aid - which would undermine that part of the plan, too."
And as I've previously suggested, there is also Krugman's Corollary. Fearful of a Democratic majority for years to come, Republicans are afraid not that Barack Obama's economic recovery and health care initiatives will fail, but that they might succeed. Or as Krugman put it on January 26th:
"Conservatives really, really don't want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don't want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending."
Which is exactly right. Barack Obama was well-meaning and sincere on bipartisanship and "changing the tone" in Washington. But in producing both suboptimal public policy and a politically reinvigorated Republican Party, Obama's good faith ultimately resulted in the worst of all worlds. Just as Paul Krugman warned.
And of all people, Barack Obama should have listened to Dick Cheney.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)
NOTE: For other takes on Obama's year of self-inflicted wounds, see Paul Krugman ("What Didn't Happen") and Drew Westen ("Obama Finally Gets His Victory For Bipartisanship").
Clinton in his first year passed NAFTA. It was a Republican bill, he and his ilk joined with the Republicans to shaft what was more leftward in the Democratic party.
Obama is definitely Clinton mold Neoliberal but the Republicans will never give them credit for passing even their most cherished legislation.
Amercan democracy is a charade, that likely will get even more grim.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Looking back, here's what I said in November 2008:
»Rahm Emanuel Offered Chief of Staff Position»
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:07 — Johnny2Bad
Didn't take long......To prove me right.
Let the Free-trading, Old School Corporate Whoring Triangulation (FOSCWT) begin!!!
Whoo Hoo!
Take a look at some of the supportive comments from that post.
Hope and unearned trust.....It ain't pretty.
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
Obama is the proof in motion.
listened to Cheney is astounding, seeing how one is evil incarnate. How telling he'd (Cheney) be more focused on what he wanted to accomplish than the other. As for Krugman, he's been proven correct many times over.
The only rational conclusion I can come up with is Obama got what he secretly wanted.
I was actually optimistic when I cast my vote more than a year ago.
The Democrats and this President make me feel like a fool.
If I had any idealism left, they've managed to stamp it out.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
or First Lady are on t.v. I change the channel as fast as I can. I can't take it anymore. And that's from a lifelong democrat. Just seeing their faces is disheartening. What happened to the fellow who was going to change Washington?
He put the Clinton lapdog, Rahm Emanuel, in charge and thus turned his Administration over to the Clintons and the DLC.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
And having Harry "Casino Comp" Reid and "Off the Table" Pelosi as the Congressional leaders didn't help either.
I will GREATLY enjoy watching these two assclowns lose their reelection bids. Oh, they'll play the..."if you don't put me back in, our State will lose influence" card, but I think that no one is in the mood for that shit anymore.
Harry Reid is in REAL trouble in Nevada and GOOD. I'm glad. He's a flaming jackass. He isn't the most incompetent Majority Leader I've ever seen. He's the most incompetent POLITICIAN I've ever seen. The only person that rivals him is Pelosi, who isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer either.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
..down the river with "taking impeachment off the table". She has this mandate in the Constitution for Congress to provide checks and balances against the executive and she, with that statement, abrogated that responsibility. YES, I hope she's the first to go.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
In 2006, David Axelrod was the chief political adviser for the chairman of the DCCC, Rahm Emanuel.
Just saying.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
be a lame
dickduck President after only one year in office?dandy
That's not the pathetic part. The pathetic part is that his Party is in the majority.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
but usually that only becomes apparent after significant losses during the mid-term elections.
Astute Presidents actually have to work, hard, to achieve such a status after only their first year in office.
G Dubya was working (not) quite hard on achieving a similar status during his first term, right up to that politically fortunate little incident on 9/11/2001. Consider: Enron's rape and pillage of the California State Treasury over manipulated electricity costs, administrations complete hands-off in that regard, blowback over Cheney's top secret energy pow-wow, the Chinese shoot-down of US Navy electronic intelligence plane - captivity of crew - failure to destroy sensitive gear, caving to Chinese demands regarding weapon system sales to Taiwan, acknowledged as the vacation President, failure to get appointments approved by the Senate, and Rumsfeld's 9/10/2001 announcement that the Pentagon somehow misplaced 1.2 Trillion USD$. Thank goodness for the PNAC "new Pearl Harbor" plan coming to fruition the very next day. What a difference a single day can make, huh ?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Obama's first year has been as shocking as W's first year. What happened to the charismatic leader of change? What we have is either a Carter-esqe administrator, or something closer to Neville Chamberlain. I knocked on doors, and worked the phone for Obama, but I took the bumper sticker off my car 3 months ago. I can't believe he is so naive as to let this happen. The only explanation is that it's all for show, and things are going according to plan.
in most ways it's the opposite.
Carter came into office and basically said to everyone that he's not going to play games - won't accept corruption or bullshit from either side.
So, the Repukes went on the attack... and the Dems either helped the Repukes or sat on the sidelines and watched... they didn't care since Carter wasn't going to 'play ball' with them.
Basically, Carter hamstrung himself by not 'playing the game' and having too much integrity.
Obama, on the other hand, has only played the game, and what integrity he might have had at one time evaporated some time between the campaign and the swearing in.
how I recall the Carter presidency. He had alot of integrity and actually tried to bring the country in the right direction - and all he received was derision.
Yes Obama should have listened to Cheney and now he has to do this.....................
is what Obama is to ANYONE who voted, knocked on doors, sent money, or stood in the fuckin cold ass DC weather to listen to his Inaugural speech! Pitiful is the word........no, "bamboozeled" is the way Obama put it.
dandy
1. Identify an issue that people want to hear about.
2. Make a GREAT SPEECH on the subject, to cheering crowds, happy faces, and even good editorial page coverage.
3. Quit. Do nothing else. Ignore the task of leadership.
4. After too much time has passed, have Rahm bitch at the Progressive Caucus for complaining about the complete inaction by the White House.
5. Meet every perceived demand made by political opponents, making sure that the knife that you use to stab your supporters in the back is razor sharp, and free of fingerprints and grime.
6. Have Rahm look at the polling data on said issue.
7. Freak out over polling data.
8. Hold emergency White House meeting.
9. Hold secret emergency meeting with select members of Congress.
10. Rush helter skelter, trying to repair the leaking boat. Send the President out to give a last minute speech.
11. Issue public statement regretting why the President lost on an issue that was near and dear to his heart.
12. Criticize and blame others, under cover, especially Progressives and others who brought you the bad news.
13. Identify an issue that people want to hear about.
1. wipe some ky jelly on your ass
2. prepare to get really screwed
3. and, then do #13, again.
dandy
to keep us occupied while big money interests complete their pillaging of our nation.
and legalize drugs so the people wouldn't care anymore.
And mo' money mo' money mo' money for corporations! and more taxes!! BRILLIANT!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Of course, anyone who is keeping track of what the Obama administration says about honoring States' Rights in regards to Medical Marijuana would see a huge disconnect between those statements made and the continuing targeted DEA raids against MMJ dispensaries. Probably no bearing whatsoever that the Obama administration has failed to follow the norm, and replace Republican hold-overs in the DoJ from the Dubya administration, all in the name of "bipartisanship".
Or that a simple administrative ruling regarding the failure to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule 1 drug to a Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 drug to reflect actual investigative science, like the outcome of the buried 1972 Shafer Commission Report, the issuing of USA Patent 6630507 to the USDA in 2003, or the more recent about-face by the AMA regarding medically useful applications for marijuana.
Meet the new boss, just like the old boss ...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Cheney's Real "CUT" Plan
Cheney/Göring:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Cheneys/Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)
PLEASE stop mentioning that miserable bastard's name. It only reminds me that that degenerate lowlife is still alive.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
My INTENTION:
"Reminds YOU ALL, that that degenerate lowlife is still alive"
Kept alive by evil government socialized medicine.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I'm a huge Obama supporter but I have to admit; he's not the man I helped elect. Between trying to work with the Republicans, which is a waste of time, and backing off on some of his more liberal agendas, I think he's backed himself into a corner, and there's only one way out: the hell with trying to create any kind of bi-partisan workings in the house or senate. Just do what you feel is best, and if you're voted out...so be it.
It's become apparent that the GOP / tea baggers, etc. aren't going to give an inch so what's the point of trying to be reasonable in any way, shape or form?
It's OVER. They lost the wide majority and at best will only hold ground. There may be marginal shifts but if there are, I see the GOP picking up a seat or two in the Senate and probably only one in the House.
If the Dems didn't have the spine to push through legislation with 59 votes (fuck Lieberman...he doesn't count) they are not going to even attempt it with 55 or 56.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Can you explain to me how you push through major reform when you do not have the 60 votes in the senate? Why is it Obama fault if he proposes major reform and it gets blocked in the Senate? Republicans had 12 democratic senators that voted for the Bush tax cuts..... if Blue Dogs will not vote for major reform as they are afraid of losing their seat then how is that Obama's fault? or if the Republicans threaten to filibuster everything...
How did the GOP push through SIGNIFICANT tax cuts for rich people with a far smaller majority than the Dems have now.
POLITICS. They cowed all their members into voting the way the Party wanted, and demonized the Dems into going along. THAT'S how.
Major reform could have been passed with this Congress. You EMBARRASS the Blue Dogs into voting for it by pointing out aht they come from the poorest states and that their constituents would benefit the MOST from the legislation.
You DEMONIZE the Republicans. You have YOUR media hacks show images of babies not getting healthcare on the MSM. You show old people not getting care.
This wasn't done. Why? Not because of the GOP. The Dems USED the GOP for political cover. The bottom line...the Dems LIKE the insurance campaign money...and they were not going to stop sucking off their donors just to help a bunch of middle class non donating Americans!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Explain to me how you shame the blue dogs? How exactly does that work when many voters in their states did no support significant healthcare reform?
Blue dogs act more republican then democrat.
Never was a 60 vote majority, more like a 50+ majority.
Without 60 votes you have nothing.
Bush got through significant tax cuts because 12 democrats voted for them and democrats i believe were not threatening to filibuster. They tried to peel off a few Republicans as they did with stimulus, but not even Snowe would go along with a public option, nevermind holding the line with all the democrats and Lieberman. Liberman actually killed the public option.
Again because of the Republican filibuster without 60 votes you have nothing. Republicans are demanding 60 votes not the democrats. 60 votes in not realistic.
If the democrats were so in bed with the insurance companies as you claim why were they spending 100s of millions lobbying against any healthcare reform? record amount of money lobbied against healthcare reform. or why did the democrats and Obama even start healthcare reform in the first place?
..taken our minds off of or at least distracted us from two wars, the need for war crimes' trials, the environment, Social Security going bust, New Orleans, blackwater, fisa, outing covert cia operatives, telecom companies releasing private information, spying on American citizens,..
did I miss anything?
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
..jobs, the recession, bank bailouts, financial reform,..
I think that's..oh wait, Pakistan, Georgia/Russia, oil prices,..
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Your thots are a little too conspiratorial for me. You honestly think Obama pushed through healthcare reform so he could do or continue all of these other things.. you are nuts..
the notion that the dems must have 60 votes to do anything needs to be tossed aside. seems more like a democratic excuse than anything else.
let the GOP filibuster for days on end like they did with their opposition to the civil rights act.
the dems (if they weren't beholden to AHIP/PHRMA) should put together real health reform that would actually be beneficial to the public.
let the GOP filibuster their own political grave.
I agree, put up a strong public option or single payer healthcare bill and let the GOP filibuster and then you can blame the GOP when it fails. You can say we tried very hard, but it was the GOP. However, you better be certain that the public blames the GOP and not the Democrats for getting nothing done. I think the WH made the political calculation that it was better to get something (which would still be just under a trillion dollars to subsidize healthcare and get +30 mm more insurance) than to do nothing and see it fail at the hands of the GOP.
it only takes 51 votes to pass a bill.
50 votes plus the vote of the Vice President, acting as President of the Senate, as per the USA Constitution.
That's right -- 50 + 1 is all it takes, legally speaking ...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
but, 60 votes to break a filibuster. You can try reconsiliation, but you better be sure it is a bill that the public favors, or the Repugs will blame the dems for just ramming it through. you can see they are already preparing for the potential of a reconsiliation, as they are saying the defeat in MASS was a defeat of arrogance. ie. if the Dems try to ram through the healthcare bill they will say they are being arrogance. hard to know how the public will react.
It is also very unclear whether reconsiliation will even work for a healthcare bill.
yes, we know the White House will dig up any old excuse it can to make sure it keeps the deal it made with the lobbyists that no government plan affecting the medical industry's profits would be included in the bill, in exchange for their political support.
Obama Is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan
What is the fear of filibuster? Let the GOP filibuster and walk out and hold their breath and stamp their feet as often as they want. American people will quickly see, they're plainly DICKS, not interested in making improvements, but petulant children.
As it is now, the Dems don't get what they want with 60, or really 59 (Lieberman).
Why did Bush get everything he wanted with a smaller majority??
far left loon >.<
What's this irrantional fear of a filibuster?
It's there for a reason, if they want to use it, let them.
No big deal.
Bush got what he wanted on some votes because he got many democrats to support him. Obama is getting zero republicans to support him.
hard to know if letting the bill fail because of a filibuster will help or hurt the democrats. maybe better to get something than nothing.
More appliances that fall apart in 2 weeks, wood screws that snap in half while building things, beef recalls, pot pies with metal pins in them, lead toys, dangerous strollers, defective vaccines . . whatever put's the most money in the pockets of our Brave Corporate Ceo's spreading freedom around the Globe.
it is routine for majority governments less than 50% of the popular vote. It is fully expected, understood, respected and accepted that to be effective they must govern as if they had a significant majority.
but that is generally called a "ruling coalition" government, comprised of more than one party, in order to obtain that actual majority. Parliamentarian challenges in the form of "Vote of No Confidence" frequently results in a change of government, including sometimes the Prime Minister. Such a reshuffling of government, party alliances or cabinet ministers or even elections. is usually spurred by either a dispute over domestic or foreign policies.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
the monarchy.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
pretender to the throne, I guess that would have made Darth Cheney the monarch, and all while using Dubya as a sock-puppet.
By all indications, Darth Cheney is still in charge, what with all those moles / stay-behinds that Obama has not only failed to clear out, but has also re-appointed in some instances. Isn't "bipartisanship" great ?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
financing; Obama is using the 60-majority, Blue Dogs, Olympia Snow, Max Baucus et al as covers for passing down a watered-down, corporate friendly bill that will enable to keep the backroom deals he struck with the medical industry lobbyists last spring: no government plan for campaign cash.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/poli...
of voting in America's democracy might as well be just signed over to the corporations....
occurred in 2002, with the passage of "Help America Vote (Our Way)", which financed the replacement of old-fashioned paper voting machines with electronic ones sans any paper trail or recount capability.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
I believe you'll find that the SCOTUS just did that earlier today
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
Stick a fork in it -- democracy in the USA is now officially over and DONE !
8-(
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Jon,
Your post is all fine and dandy in theory, but there are two very big differences between what Obama has had to endure than what Bush did in terms of pushing their agenda and policy.
1) the recession has just made everything harder. many democrats are nervous to vote for big change, as the recession overhang has made winning their seats more of a challenge, and the recession has also been a very big distraction for the Obama adminstration and has got in the way to pushing their original agenda. he has had to spend a ton of political capital just to fix the economy instead of on his original agenda.
and
2) Bush never faced a completely uncooperative Democratic party as Obama faces a completely uncooperative Republican party. Bush always got a couple of Democratic votes, in fact more than a few, as 28 House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts. Not only are Republicans voting NO to every single thing of substance Obama proposes, but they also threaten to filibuster every single thing in the senate, which then requires the 60 votes. Obama does not have 60 votes on everything as many blue dogs are also voting NO for significant change. Completely different than what Bush faced.
Jon, you are comparing apples and oranges with a grape or two thrown in.
The system is broke. What is astonding to me is that in any other major western democracy any party that won that big a majority would be able to push through major reform and new legislation. Not in American where it is not enough to win control of all three positions of power, but you also need a super majority in the Senate to pass anything. That is simply unrealistic.
I fully expected him to adopt the tactics of Cheney/Bush. I am so disappointed he did not I will never vote again.
The last thing we ever elect a President to do is try and to unite people and find common ground. We never would have last this long if any of them had ever tried to do that.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
there was a lot of common ground when it came to health reform, yet obama and the dems repeatedly pushed for things that made AHIP/PHRMA happy, but ran afoul of popular opinion.
same with the economic crisis.
..this country was that about 70% of the nation wanted a public option, less for the single payer but still a significant figure, as I remember. And what did we all get?? Well, health care company stocks are looking real good right now.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
for a public option in the high 50% range. Support for mandates was above 70%. Elimination of pre-existing condition restrictions was even higher in support. More basic priorities expressed by the President were higher than the public option.
There were both similarities and differences in priorities across partisan groups: while assuring the availability of affordable plans ranked in the top three priorities for Democrats, Republicans and independents, deficit neutrality ranked in the top three priorities for Republicans and independents and providing enough government financial help so as many uninsured people as possible can get health insurance ranked in the top three for Democrats. Creating a public option ranked near the bottom of this list among all three groups. Even so, when asked if they favor or oppose having a public plan to compete with private insurers, a substantial a majority of Americans (59%) say they support the idea.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/trackingpoll.cfm
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
The survey of 2,999 households by Thomson Reuters Corp shows a public skeptical about the cost, quality and accessibility of medical care.
Just under 60 percent of those surveyed said they would like a public option as part of any final healthcare reform legislation, which Republicans and a few Democrats oppose.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL2...
"Eighty-three percent of Americans favor and only 14 percent oppose “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase” according to EBRI, a conservative business research organization. This flatly contradicts conservatives’ loudest attack against President Obama’s plan to provide quality, affordable health care for all."
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/200906251...
But I've been unable to find the numbers you cite there. Here is the pdf of the Toplines from the December '09 Kaiser poll and "public option" and "mandate" appear nowhere in the document I can find. Here are the Key Findings from that same poll, and I still can't find those numbers. No luck on the Chartpack here either.
Is there a new poll? You've apparently quoted from a poll so I assume there's a source. I just can't find it where you linked.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Perhaps you could list a few accomplishments others have so childishly neglected. You know: like how united we all are.
Or is the snark meter set so high it can't recognize a New Democrat apologist puff piece?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
It is a well known FACT as all REAL progressives will tell you,
that everyone in government is, with the rare exception of those who agree with US, corporatist tools who planned everything this way. The American people are large arseholes lathered in KY jelly who agree with US even when they don't because the polls show it except those polls mainipulated by the MSM (corporatist owned IMHO) so therefore we should shove our agenda up their patoots too because the Repukelicrudtardos would have and despite their evilness and stupidity they made the trains run on time and got things done. So we should be like them. Show some balls.
Better?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Couldn't come up with anything, huh?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
isn't just a river in Egypt.
;-)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
go with the flow.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
that, with eyes wide open, I can actually observe the terrain through which this administration is transversing. After Obama's vote for FISA as the junior Senator from Illinois, I was already cognizant that he had Neo-Liberal tendencies. The promises that Obama made during his Presidential campaign, about transparency in government, about a strong public option for healthcare, etcetera I mistakenly took as some moderation away from his much more conservative voting record. (Okay, hope.) So I voted for Obama last November as the lessor of 2 evils, instead of voting with my head for the Socialist Party candidate. (It's called "Voter's Remorse".)
I refuse to be fooled again, either by Obama or the Democratic Party. Flow -- yes indeed !
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
But like I said, I'd rather just join the local concensus and bash angrily than snark alone.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Corruption favors the wealthy.
to the tracking poll main page. The quote is from November's track. I used November because, as you discovered looking at December, they did not poll Public Option last month for some reason.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr113009pkg.cfm
They have a new January poll out today which can be linked from the main page but wasn't here yesterday.
Support for the Public Option seems to have fallen slightly but I have not looked at the November chart pack to see if the question was identical to November.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
..this was just another conspiracy of the corporatists to take complete control of this country.
After 8 years of the criminals, republicans had NO chance of being elected into the Executive. They put up a weak candidate and un-electable one in mccain/palin and handed the election to a centrist senator from illinois who promised us all hope and change and then sat on the sidelines waiting for the bipartisanship mojo to kick in, yeah right. NOW, we have lost the majority in the senate and that majority will likely slip further towards the right later this year and the scotus put the future of elections up for sale. PLEASE, tell me that isn't the perception you might have. I don't like conspiracy theories, I abhor them, but this is what appears to have happened and all of our posts, comments, rants and sadly, votes mean nothing. It all falls on deaf ears. Christ, I so want to go back into the jungle, never to be seen again.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
the U.S. as a democracy will cease within a hundred years. Not one believes our corporatist, free market system will survive as we know it.
Your friends are more optimistic than I am.
as he pointed out. They are probably European. The plague, crusades, inquisition, religious wars and a couple of twentieth century conflagrations that inflamed the whole world have given them a longer view of things.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
And those events certainly would've weeded out anyone who had a tendency toward hand-wringing or lacked a positive mental attitude.
family deferments like Cheney to avoid the wars, been genetically resistant to fleas and such, plus loved whichever side of Jesus worshiping was winning in their neighborhood at the time. That and balls.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Or Canadians, or Australians, or New Zealanders or...
far left loon >.<
But that was before this ruling.
I would figure it to be less than 20 years, at best.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
... before you can safely engage in mental gymnastics like this:
Of course Obama was "well meaning and sincere"; New Democrats know this because they have "looked into his soul." He couldn't be selling out to interests that have already paid him substantially or holding out for a Bill Clinton "in 10 years you'll be worth over 100 million dollars" type deal.
No, It was "sincere and well meaning."
Because, when you take over leadership of a country with two wars, an economic meltdown, and a Bill of Rights in shambles, the most important things to address are bi-partisanship and the uncivil tone in Washington. WTF?
Any examples of how the "tone" or lack of bi-partisanship in Washington is responsible for any of these problems? Or how a "change of tone" or increased bi-partisanship could possibly address them? Any examples whatsoever?
Not a chance. "Changing the tone" and "bi-partisanship" are right up there with "they hate us for our freedoms." It may sound nice, and it's certainly self-flattering, but it's not a reason for anything. It's what you say when you don't want actual reasons discussed.
Also, thanks for implicitly acknowledging that immunizing torture and imprisonment without cause are "suboptimal" policies.
Keep thinking voters are stupid, New Democrats (Granted though, it is an improvement over actually calling us stupid), and last Tuesday will be nothing compared to next November.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I actually got there last Tuesday night.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Personally, I made the decision that I will NEVER cast my vote for any Democrat and most certainly any RepubliKKKan in ANY election for a very long time to come. I will still vote though. The two ruling parties are really one and the same. The American people have been duped, played, lied to and even robbed for decades by our current political system. This country is more broken than any of us will ever really know.
Government + the Federal Reserve = organized crime
Breaking up the "Too Big To Fail" Banks:
Video (FireDogLake): President Obama Calls for Tougher Regulations on Banks
And:
TRANSCRIPT: George Stephanopoulos' Exclusive Interview with President Obama
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
..that Obama really is interested in a more progressive approach to this issue (or any other). Can he really be ruthless enough to push legislation through in the current political climate, a la D. Cheney? Doubts..
I'm not sure we need the "corporatist tool" conspiracy to explain things, maybe Obama is just too nice of a guy and that is basically Jon's thesis here. Oh well.
Obama cut a back room deal with Billy Tauzin of PhRMA - the same Billy Tauzin PhRMA used to get Medicare Part D written when he was with the Bushies.
"Barry's just too good of a person for his own good" may be Jon's thesis, but it still smells like a wheelbarrow full of compost.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I've never understood Obama's BiPartisanship Compulsion.
But today I found an explanation in the Stephanopoulos interview:
Obama has to get over the idea that talking to Republicans has a snowball's chance in hell of unifying the country.
Obama needs to energize the populace. That's the way to put pressure on the Republicans - and the Blue Dog Dems as well.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
(Funny...I usually feel better after a good scream.)
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
..about all of this, someone stated that with obama as the first African-American president, the next African-American who runs will have one hell of a time even being considered for office. I hope not but there is a ring of truth to that somewhat like jeb bush's chances of ever being elected. In fact, jeb would probably have an easier time of it.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
.."The leader of the House of Representatives said Thursday that she lacks the votes to move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House."
So now, the entire past year has been a big, f-ing waste of time.
How's that bi-partisanship working out now mr. obama?
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
..let go, fired, what-ever. I'm obama and I'm reading all of this vitriol and I'm thinking, "hey Rahm, are you competent to do anything else?" why wouldn't the chief executive fire his chief of staff after all of this?
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Or was that strictly rhetorical ?
;-)
How about this answer: "No reason to fire a chief of staff with whom you are in complete agreement."
Personally, I am waiting for the other shoe to drop, when Obama announces that he is switching from the Democratic Party over to the Republican Party, except that it really isn't necessary any more anyway.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Obama's brain is worse than Bush's.
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
Ghandi had a lifetime to devote to winning over the other side with pacifism. Seems like Obama failed to notice he had to do it in less than four years.
Obama is President of the United States.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
When Obama took office on 01-20-2009, there was a strong Democratic horse ready for him to ride, but he hopped on the cheney/puppet bush burro to ride, which has not taken him very far or fast.
Well, who else could progressives have voted for in 2008?
I think it was right at the time (though, perhaps, wrong with hindsight) to view Hillary through the lens of her Husband, Bill.
Looking forward, progressives will vote for Obama again in 2012, however reluctantly, because the Republican ticket will be too ridiculous to contemplate. Try DeLay/Palin on for size.
I don't know if Obama is the best progressives can hope for in this corporatocracy, or if we should be hoping to see Dean run.
Comments are closed on this entry