Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Here's the Dem's 2004 gibberish just for comparison:

John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democratic Party believe in a better, stronger, healthier America. Our resolve to fix the health crisis is stronger than ever. In the wealthiest country in the world, every expectant mother should get quality prenatal care; every child should get regular check-ups; every senior should be able to get safe, affordable prescription drugs; and no hard­working family should ever lose everything because illness strikes a loved one.

Ensuring health care for children. The job begins with our children. It is a disgrace that nearly

8.5 million children still lack health insurance. We will strengthen Medicaid for our families and expand the children's health program created under President Clinton so no child goes without medical care.

Expanding coverage. Under the leadership of John Kerry and John Edwards, we will offer individuals and businesses tax credits to make quality, reliable health coverage more affordable. We will provide tax credits to Americans who are approaching retirement age and those who are between jobs so they can afford quality, reliable coverage. We will expand coverage for low income adults through existing federal-state health care programs. And we will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves.

Cutting health care costs. At the center of our efforts will be a plan to reduce health costs. We will lift a financial burden on families, businesses, and the self-employed by picking up the tab for the highest-cost medical cases. That will save America's families up to $1,000 on their premiums.

We will improve the quality of care and the efficiency of the medical system by using American technological know-how to cut billions of dollars wasted in administrative processing and paperwork. Today, about a quarter of all health-related spending is not even medical. We can do better. We will ensure that all Americans have secure, private electronic medical records by 2008, and we will give medical providers incentives and resources to simplify their paperwork so patients spend more time with doctors and less time filling out forms. We recognize that our health care system is substantially strengthened by the daily efforts of the men and women in a variety of health professions and we support fair treatment for all health professionals.

We will enact a real Patient's Bill of Rights to put doctors and nurses back in charge of making medical decisions with their patients – instead of allowing HMO bureaucrats to decide what a patient needs.

Helping seniors by protecting Medicare and cutting prescription costs. We oppose privatizing Medicare. We will not allow Republicans to destroy a commitment that has done so much good for so many seniors and people with disabilities over the past 39 years. Instead, we want to strengthen Medicare and make it more efficient.

We will ensure that seniors across the country, particularly in small-town and rural America, no longer suffer from geographic discrimination.

We will end the disgrace of seniors being forced to choose between meals and medication. Today, our seniors are paying too much for prescription drugs, while options abroad are far cheaper and just as safe. We will allow the safe reimportation of drugs from other countries.

The current Medicare drug program serves drug companies more than seniors. It allows these companies to change the price of prescriptions more frequently than seniors can change their plans. It does virtually nothing to bring down prescription drug costs. It forces seniors into HMOs. Elderly Americans deserve a real prescription drug benefit – one that uses the government's purchasing power to lower costs and ensures access to new therapies for their illnesses.

We will cut the waste and abuse that cost Medicare billions each year, using competitive bidding to lower the costs of buying medical equipment, educating providers to file claims more efficiently, and increasing penalties for those who bilk the system.

Dignity for all. We will ensure that elderly Americans and people with disabilities can live in dignity, with quality options for long-term care. We need to expand alternative care options and provide better assistance for those who give care. No one should be kept in a nursing home or institution if they prefer living in dignity elsewhere and can do so. And we will ensure that no person with a disability has to choose between quality health care and the dignity of work. We will also work to ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, and we will support the community-based prevention programs, built on experience with real life, that President Bush has cut. We are committed to passing the Wellstone mental health parity legislation, ending discrimination against Americans with mental illnesses, and ensuring equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.

Eliminating health disparities. Millions of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians continue to live sicker and die younger in America. Cultural and language barriers remain a particular problem for immigrant communities. We will fight racial and ethnic health care disparities by increasing research and training in the medical profession, breaking down language barriers, and ensuring good health care for all Americans. We will encourage and support enabling more minority students to enter the sciences. We will also work to ensure that women have access to the best medicines and state-of-the-art prevention and detection techniques to stop diseases early. We will also support prevention of illness through better nutrition and exercise.

Investing in science to battle disease. We will push the boundaries of science in search of new medical therapies and cures. The Bush Administration has put ideology over science, skewing information about everything from women's health to scientific research. Americans deserve access to the best evidence available about illnesses, therapies, and cures. From new therapies to prolong life for people with AIDS, to new openings in the battle to cure cancer, the possibilities of medical research fill us with hope. We will secure more funding for aggressive biomedical research seeking affordable and effective therapies based on real science.

President Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses – from Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.

Honoring our veterans. Finally, we will never forget the debt America owes our veterans. Patriotism means keeping faith with those who have worn the uniform of the United States. This Administration has broken its promises to our veterans – raising their health costs and reducing their access to care. John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats will keep faith with our veterans. We will continue the fight for mandatory funding for veterans' health care and we will make sure that disabled veterans and military retirees are not penalized with reductions in their pension benefits. And we will aggressively address the inexcusable backlogs in veterans' compensation and pension claims.

We believe in an America where health care is available and affordable. Where every family looks to the future with hope and excitement, without worry that the cost of health care is becoming too great to bear. Where strong, healthy families build a stronger America.

TAX CREDITS FOR EVERYBODY YAAAAAAY

 

[Vahagn]

Those were the joke conservative plans no one took seriously and none of those were models for universal health care.

You guys can argue that all 3 models were liberal models but I disagree. Whether conservatives would ever implement IM if they had the power is irrelevant, what's relevant is which model they would prefer and I think it's clear that IM was much preferred in conservative circles over PO or SP.

It's also clear that the reverse is true for liberals.


Imagine if instead of health care we were talking about tax rates for rich people. And when conservatives had power with current rates at 40% and argued for 28% top rates, liberals argued for 35% tax rates and a middle road was set at 32%. Just because liberals were never going to lower taxes on rich people if they had the power, doesn't mean that getting a 35% rate isn't a bigger win than getting a 28% one. .

They did have power, and they went for tax credits, HSAs and Medicare Part D.

It's not like the Democrats would have filibustered any of the three options you suggest are the only ones that anyone might actually pursue.

Not all health care reform is recognized as a universal health care model. What they did was reform health care, they had no interest in actually legislating into law universal health care when they had the power.

 

[benjipwns]

Whether conservatives would ever implement IM if they had the power is irrelevant, what's relevant is which model they would prefer and I think it's clear that IM was much preferred in conservative circles over PO or SP.

They did have power, and they went for tax credits, HSAs and Medicare Part D.

It's not like the Democrats would have filibustered any of the three options you suggest are the only ones that anyone might actually pursue.

Not all health care reform is recognized as a universal health care model. What they did was reform health care, they had no interest in actually legislating into law universal health care when they had the power.

What's recognized as a universal health care model depends on how you define "universal health care" more than anything.

 

[pigeon]

Those were the joke conservative plans no one took seriously and none of those were models for universal health care.

You guys can argue that all 3 models were liberal models but I disagree. Whether conservatives would ever implement IM if they had the power is irrelevant, what's relevant is which model they would prefer and I think it's clear that IM was much preferred in conservative circles over PO or SP.

It's also clear that the reverse is true for liberals.

I seriously don't see why you think this is relevant given that it's extremely obvious that conservatives wanted to ensure that no health care model would ever pass.

If you had to drop a nuclear bomb on one American city, which city would it be? Is that the progressive option for which American city to nuke? If that city gets nuked, is that a victory for progressivism?

Imagine if instead of health care we were talking about tax rates for rich people. And when conservatives had power with current rates at 40% and argued for 28% top rates, liberals argued for 35% tax rates and a middle road was set at 32%. Just because liberals were never going to lower taxes on rich people if they had the power, doesn't mean that getting a 35% rate isn't a bigger win than getting a 28% one. .

But getting 35% would still be a win for conservatives, because the status quo was 40%, and if liberals controlled the government they'd leave the status quo in place. That's the whole point. It's not a win for liberals to get 35%, it's a smaller loss.

 

[Vahagn]

I seriously don't see why you think this is relevant given that it's extremely obvious that conservatives wanted to ensure that no health care model would ever pass.

If you had to drop a nuclear bomb on one American city, which city would it be? Is that the progressive option for which American city to nuke? If that city gets nuked, is that a victory for progressivism?



But getting 35% would still be a win for conservatives, because the status quo was 40%, and if liberals controlled the government they'd leave the status quo in place. That's the whole point. It's not a win for liberals to get 35%, it's a smaller loss.

we're not arguing about what to call this. We're arguing about whether or not it's better for liberals that rates are only lowered to 35% instead of the 28% conservatives want and have the power to get. When you are out of power and get more than you should have reasonably gotten based on the circumstances, that's a win. It's entirely unrealistic to expect a supermajority/president of one party to pass the agenda of the other. But veering that group further left or right even when you don't have power is a sign of being good at politics.

Also, the idea that conservatives didn't want any health care plan to ever pass is a hypothetical. Sure, when they had no actual pressure to pass one, maybe they didn't want it passed, but once Obama got elected with a super majority, the stakes changed. We won't know because the only reputable plan they ever had was used by this President.

I think it's entirely feasible that If Obama passed PO or SP that Romney and the entire conservative base would rally around IM and that would be the plan he ran on, instead of ran from.

You should know by now that this party and this movement focus on rejecting or finding fault with everything this president says and supporting anything that is the anti-Obama.

 

[benjipwns]

But Obama's problem wasn't with the Republicans. It was with Democrats.

Republicans, other than a possible Scott Brown interlude, were basically irrelevant to the process other than the fact that they were forcing the Democrats to use their entire caucus. Democrats were negotiating with themselves.

 

[Ember128]

Hey guys. Canadian here. I've been keeping up with American politics thoroughly. Is there a chance of getting more US Government functionality going in the next 2.5 years or so? We're pretty concerned about that up here.

I ask mainly because I thought that was happening, or at least that it was possible, but now I have no idea whether it will or not.

 

[benjipwns]

Could you define "government functionality"?

 

[Ember128]

Like, the ability of the legislative branch to be able to pass legislation, fill important posts such as ambassadors/diplomats/at least some number of judges, be able to react at least somewhat effectively to problems smaller than a potential nation ending financial crisis (2008) to something on the scale of say, what Michigan is dealing with.

 

[pigeon]

we're not arguing about what to call this. We're arguing about whether or not it's better for liberals that rates are only lowered to 35% instead of the 28% conservatives want and have the power to get.

Okay, sure.

My argument is that we never had the power to pass single payer, so it's totally irrelevant whether we would have preferred to pass single payer than to pass the individual mandate.

Also, the idea that conservatives didn't want any health care plan to ever pass is a hypothetical. Sure, when they had no actual pressure to pass one, maybe they didn't want it passed, but once Obama got elected with a super majority, the stakes changed. We won't know because the only reputable plan they ever had was used by this President.

Okay, so you ARE operating off the assumption that Obama's election made the passage of a health care plan inevitable and the only question was which one.

I think that's a very unwarranted assumption! Lots of progressives have been elected in the last hundred years who didn't succeed in passing health care. What makes you so confident that anything was possible here?

Moreover, even assuming that you're right, you're totally failing to count that change. Before 2008, health care reform was an impossibility. If one election made it guaranteed, then that itself is a huge victory for liberals. It seems pretty unfair to just ignore that huge shift in the status quo in order to measure the eventual outcome from a different point so that it can be judged a win for the GOP.

 

[zero shift]

Hey guys. Canadian here. I've been keeping up with American politics thoroughly. Is there a chance of getting more US Government functionality going in the next 2.5 years or so? We're pretty concerned about that up here.

I ask mainly because I thought that was happening, or at least that it was possible, but now I have no idea whether it will or not.

Until the city vs suburb divide goes away or we abolish the Senate the gridlock will always exist.

 

[benjipwns]

Like, the ability of the legislative branch to be able to pass legislation, fill important posts such as ambassadors/diplomats/at least some number of judges, be able to react at least somewhat effectively to problems smaller than a potential nation ending financial crisis (2008) to something on the scale of say, what Michigan is dealing with.

The first two the government already does, the last one the government can't do.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I think that's a very unwarranted assumption! Lots of progressives have been elected in the last hundred years who didn't succeed in passing health care. What makes you so confident that anything was possible here?

Piggybacking off this: Lyndon Johnson had a veto-proof majority of Democrats (not just a hypothetical filibuster-proof majority) in both houses of Congress and couldn't pass anything stronger than Medicare/Medicaid, and for largely the same reasons that the ACA was so 'neutered' - so what makes you think it was supposed to be easy?

 

[Black Mamba]

A) You're confusing fundamentals with bad politics. Their base are xenophobic/homophobic/islamaphobic/sexist bigots. That's their most passionate voting block. They're struggling with a way to embrace women's issues and treat black and brown people better to expand their voting tent without alienating their base. This has nothing to do with being bad at politics, it has to do with being stuck between a rock and a hard spot. The smart, saavy conservatives understand this. So do their politicians. It's something Lyndon Johnson famously dealt with and commented on in the 60's.

If the goal for Republicans is to gain power and enact more republican leaning policy, then adhering to their base is bad politics. If they moderated and gave a real choice, then they'd win and actually be able to do something. Right now, they can't. At least not nationally. It's also how they completely lost California. Like, they are irrelevant here.

What you don't get is that the fundamentals dictate politics and they're totally doing it wrong. Any political scientist will tell you to appeal to the median voter, not the extreme voter.

The GOP is the idiot party not just because of their ideas but because of their politics. Only a party with bad politics could have lost the 2012 election so badly as they did. It was up for grabs and they blew it.

They are the 2000 Portland Trailblazers in the 4th quarter of game 7.

B) You're seriously underestimating Obama. Obama wasn't a boiler plate boring candidate. He was Reaganesque and Clintonesque in his ability to bring passion and inspiration to his supporters. It wasn't until NSA and "You can keep your doctor" that that lustre faded, it was there all the way until 2012 with his base. If Obama was Kerry or Gore, he would have lost. But he was Obama, and he went up against a Robot with no good ideas.

Reagan and Clinton didn't have the detractors, though. Not even close (and yeah, the GOP tried everything on Clinton but they still sat with him at the table).

Anyone would have won in 2008. A cactus would have won in 2008. The economy tanked, 2 horrible wars, no GOP stood a chance. In 2012, Romney would have won if he didn't go hard to the right and actually proposed stuff. Easily. He lost because the GOP is bad at politics.

C) They have nutjob politicians who occasionally say un-electable things. This doesn't make the conservative political class bad at politics. The very fact that any of those crazies get elected in the first place should tell you how good they are at keeping their true feelings hidden.

Name me one piece of national legislation the GOP passed since 2008 that it crafted. Just one. And I mean important, not "national ice cream day."

They will go 8 years without actually passing a single GOP proposal into law. Not one.

 

[benjipwns]

They are the 2000 Portland Trailblazers in the 4th quarter of game 7.

No, no, he's just an Alaska State Senator: http://www.alaskasenate.org/senate/member/mike-dunleavy

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't understand the position that the ACA is not a turn left for American Health Care because a conservative mentioned it one piece of it 20 years ago and/or because it's not the end goal for UHC according to liberals?

What?

First off, conservatives are allowed to propose liberal ideas. No one is forced to conform onto one single box all the time. Just because conservatives thought of something liberal doesn't turn it conservative.

If Mitt Romney proposed single payer, that wouldn't make single payer suddenly conservative.

Such a bizarre argument.

Second, you only compare it to the previous state. The ACA is to the left of that and anyone arguing otherwise is wrong, plain as day. Just because it's not as far left as some wanted or proposed doesn't change this fact one bit. It doesn't matter if the conservatives get a partial "win" by not letting it go further to the left. Left is left. Right is right.

No, no, he's just an Alaska State Senator: http://www.alaskasenate.org/senate/member/mike-dunleavy

You always slay me.

 

[speculawyer]

Hey guys. Canadian here. I've been keeping up with American politics thoroughly. Is there a chance of getting more US Government functionality going in the next 2.5 years or so? We're pretty concerned about that up here.

I ask mainly because I thought that was happening, or at least that it was possible, but now I have no idea whether it will or not.

No, not likely. To be honest, I think it will take 2022 before it might become functional. (Why because we need a new census, new redistricting, and an election after that.)

That is depressing as all fuck.

 

[pigeon]

Like, the ability of the legislative branch to be able to pass legislation, fill important posts such as ambassadors/diplomats/at least some number of judges, be able to react at least somewhat effectively to problems smaller than a potential nation ending financial crisis (2008) to something on the scale of say, what Michigan is dealing with.

We will not do any of those things before 2016, and in fact, if there were another nation-ending financial crisis, the odds are only maybe even that we'd do anything about that.

I'm not counting the nation-ending financial crises we generate ourselves with the debt ceiling. We'll still probably avoid those.

 

[benjipwns]

You need the election before it to do the redistricting as well.

That said, the redistricting thing is not a great excuse. Most every "fair" model of redistricting (i.e. that ignores voting patterns for geometric shapes) still comes out favoring Republicans because Democrats run up votes in cities. That makes it hard to even redistrict in the opposite manner, and a lot of states where that ability would benefit Democrats have setup bipartisan or independent committees. It's not like "proper" gerrymandering would have swung 20-30 seats.

I think one thing that Democrats/progressives/etc. tend to overlook is the assumption that the Senate Democrats wanted to do all this great stuff but the Republicans keep undermining them. It wasn't the Republicans grinding up every bill Pelosi was sending the Senate during the first two years of Obama's term*. Reid and Durbin also play their own games with all sorts of things, it's not all obstructionism from the GOP. There's a reason they wouldn't do things like submit budgets.

*

 

[Black Mamba]

You need the election before it to do the redistricting as well.

That said, the redistricting thing is not a great excuse. Most every "fair" model of redistricting (i.e. that ignores voting patterns for geometric shapes) still comes out favoring Republicans because Democrats run up votes in cities. That makes it hard to even redistrict in the opposite manner, and a lot of states where that ability would benefit Democrats have setup bipartisan or independent committees. It's not like "proper" gerrymandering would have swung 20-30 seats.

I think one thing that Democrats/progressives/etc. tend to overlook is the assumption that the Senate Democrats wanted to do all this great stuff but the Republicans keep undermining them. It wasn't the Republicans grinding up every bill Pelosi was sending the Senate during the first two years of Obama's term*. Reid and Durbin also play their own games with all sorts of things, it's not all obstructionism from the GOP. There's a reason they wouldn't do things like submit budgets.

*

While I agree on redistricting, not so much on the other part.

The spike in 2006 happens because the Dems took the House vs GOP senate control. The 2008 issue is that the GOP had still mostly a filibuster in place (Kennedy was ill, remember...you need 60 to break a filibuster, not 40 to hold one). It was to put pressure on the GOP and as well some other Dems.

I'd also have to see the type of bills that were done. There was a crisis going on, after all.

edit: you'd also have to know what percentage of total legislation that means. Maybe those two Houses were more active in general?

 

[benjipwns]

Democrats had Senate control 2007-2008.

Stuff like cap and trade, a number of health care bill attempts, a bunch of other environmental stuff, estate tax changes, a bunch of "jobs" bills, some financial reforms and most importantly the Restore Our American Mustangs Act all got passed and died in the 59-40 Senate. Not to mention plenty of voice vote, 80%+ vote type junk.

The Senate loves omnibus bills too much is the problem. The House has (since Cannon) traditionally been much better at sending up piecemeal legislation while the Senate wants to create giant bills out of their backroom and committee horse trading. (Which then the House when it gets it back loads up with their pork barrel spending.) Which is what Baucus basically did instead of touching the House's health care bills.

 

[Black Mamba]

Democrats had Senate control 2007-2008.

Er, that's right. Well again, I'd have to see the actual activity. And there's a good chance that the Nancy Pelosi House was just very proactive as a policy.

I'm just saying there's lots of things that could explain those spikes other than Dems ignoring it. Again, the threat of the filibuster alone could be the reason for it.

The Senate loves omnibus bills too much is the problem.

That too.

Stuff like cap and trade, a number of health care bill attempts, a bunch of other environmental stuff, estate tax changes, a bunch of "jobs" bills, some financial reforms and most importantly the Restore Our American Mustangs Act all got passed and died in the 59-40 Senate. Not to mention plenty of voice vote, 80%+ vote type junk.

Because those were all in the media spotlight AFAIR. Especially cap and trade.

I bet a bunch of the stuff are things people know little about. Not just in the spikes, but in general.

 

[benjipwns]

A lot of it is meaningless crap, but that's any selection of legislation you take. But some of this stuff was going nowhere because Reid (and Durbin) has a very specific manner of scheduling legislation, which Democrats will grumble about privately:
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Bills_passed_by_the_House_but_not_by_the_Senate_--_111th_Congress

I saw some Latino groups grumbling a month or so back that maybe a 51-49 Republican Senate might be better for immigration because it would still get enough votes and not be held back for "strategic scheduling" purposes. (Which is probably more frustration speaking than rational thinking.)

 

[Manmademan]

Hey guys. Canadian here. I've been keeping up with American politics thoroughly. Is there a chance of getting more US Government functionality going in the next 2.5 years or so? We're pretty concerned about that up here.

I ask mainly because I thought that was happening, or at least that it was possible, but now I have no idea whether it will or not.

no.

 

[Aaron Strife]

heh. Among voters who consider healthcare their most important issue, Pryor leads 50-39.

 

[Tamanon]

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/25/6842531/will-mitt-romney-run-in-2016

In January, when Mitt Romney was asked if he'd run for president for a third time, he responded by repeating the word "no" 11 times. But according to a Wednesday report from the Washington Examiner's Byron York, that may have been premature. "Romney is talking with advisers, consulting with his family, keeping a close eye on the emerging '16 Republican field, and carefully weighing the pluses and minuses of another run," York reports. "That doesn't mean he will decide to do it, but it does mean that Mitt 2016 is a real possibility."

York adds that Romney "is said to believe" that, apart from himself, only former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has a shot at winning the White House for the GOP. Bush has said he'll decide whether or not to run by the end of the year. If he opts not to, there will be no clear establishment favorite in the declared field — and an obvious opening Romney might be able to fill.

In the past 100 years there have only been two major party nominees who have lost the presidency and then been re-nominated for another try. They are Thomas Dewey, who lost to FDR in 1944 and again to Truman in 1948 — and Richard Nixon, who lost to JFK in 1960 and beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Honestly, Romney would win the nomination if Jeb isn't in it. And he'd be the most credible candidate. But could he handle losing again?

 

[Diablos]

He's going to run again -- Ann Romney basically says they haven't ruled it out, which is quite an upgrade from saying they're through with running for President again.

He would be a formidable candidate against Hillary especially in light of polling that shows him now besting Obama. Seems like some voters are having second thoughts, which is sad.

He'll win the nomination if he runs again, and will amass a fourtnue to run against Hillary. He will learn from his mistakes last time.

 

[PhoenixDark]

2016 would be the perfect time to dust off Moderate Romney 1.0. The wealth issue would likely be neutralized against Clinton, who I just don't see as an effective champion of the middle class. She essentially went to Wall Street to apologize to bankers for democrats/Obama being mean to them.

He'd also get to tie Hillary to Obama's puzzling foreign policy while playing the "I told you so" card on Russia (right or wrong).

 

[kaching]

Romney still has to find a way not to be his own worst enemy.

 

[Drakeon]

Holder stepping down, says NPR.

 

[pigeon]

Please, God, let Romney run again.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Romney running again is basically saying that the GOP can't even field a new candidate good enough to get elected.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I think Romney would have a better shot in 2016.


More people in the United States are on the wrong side of the history now than there were in 2012. For example, it's discouraging to me that rather than focusing on climate change as a reason to vote Democrat, people instead cling to Supreme Court justices. Yes, having a better court is a great reason to vote Democrat. However, climate change is a far more important issue than Supreme Court justices. Under a Romney administration say hello to a polluter's future.

 

[Averon]

Climate change is very important, but SC appointment is important, too. I have no problem with someone voting Democrat because of SC appointments. You can't really downplay how important the makeup of the SC is. ACA was a single vote away from being completely thrown out. If Bush had put someone slightly to the right of Roberts on the court instead, that likely would have been the case.

 

[pigeon]

2016 would be the perfect time to dust off Moderate Romney 7.3.1a.

Version number fixed.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Please, God, let Romney run again.

It'll be like 1956 all over again, but in reverse.

(The 2016 Senate election's gonna be more like 1958.)

 

[Sirpopopop]

Climate change is very important, but SC appointment is important, too. I have no problem with someone voting Democrat because of SC appointments. You can't really downplay how important the makeup of the SC is. ACA was a single vote away from being completely thrown out. If Bush had put someone slightly to the right of Roberts, that likely would have been the case.

Fucking up climate change is going to lead to a massive reorganization of our entire civilization. It could lead to our collapse as a civilization. This is not alarmism. This is reality.

There is nothing more important. The fact that not enough people realize this is alarming. Yes, I agree the SC is important, but putting the two on the same level trivializes the apocalyptic effects of climate change.

 

[Allard]

Fucking up climate change is going to lead to a massive reorganization of our entire civilization. It could lead to our collapse as a civilization. This is not alarmism. This is reality.

There is nothing more important. The fact that not enough people realize this is alarming. Yes, I agree the SC is important, but putting the two on the same level trivializes the apocalyptic effects of climate change.

A lot of the things that we as a country would need to do to combat Global Warming or Climate Change likely will require going through the Supreme Court and the more 'pro business' conservative judges we have on that court the less likely things like more stringent EPA regulations and corporate penalties and the like aren't going to stick by pure ideological reasons. The Supreme Court is a very important factor for Climate change as much as any other progressive based agenda keeps getting stopped or threatened at the court level. The key is to try and do both at the same time.

 

[Aaron Strife]

PPP has Udall down 2 in Colorado, but they've always had problems polling there. I feel like Udall has a slight advantage.

 

[Vahagn]

If the goal for Republicans is to gain power and enact more republican leaning policy, then adhering to their base is bad politics. If they moderated and gave a real choice, then they'd win and actually be able to do something. Right now, they can't. At least not nationally. It's also how they completely lost California. Like, they are irrelevant here.

What you don't get is that the fundamentals dictate politics and they're totally doing it wrong. Any political scientist will tell you to appeal to the median voter, not the extreme voter.

The GOP is the idiot party not just because of their ideas but because of their politics. Only a party with bad politics could have lost the 2012 election so badly as they did. It was up for grabs and they blew it.

They are the 2000 Portland Trailblazers in the 4th quarter of game 7.

Again I disagree. You underestimate how good Candidate Obama is and how effective his campaign was at all levels. His will go down as one of the best campaigns ever.

Beyond that, you can't win primaries by appealing to the median voter. Especially not in a structure with closed primaries where voters take their marching orders from talk radio. So if you want to play in the general election, especially these last 6 years, you have to veer to the right. It's also not unique to this time. LBJ passed civil rights, gave the south to the "other side for a generation" and the Republicans had the white house for 20 of the next 24 years. You can't win elections if you sacrifice your base in that way. And nothing riles up the conservative base more than doing something for brown and black people. Which is why conservative politicians are struggling to keep their base and pick up minority votes.

Republican politicians don't control their base, talk radio does. And talk radio hosts, for purely financial reasons, need to keep their base as extreme as possible. If they sound like Joe Scarborough or Steve Schmidt, those listeners won't have the same cult of personality around them.

Okay, sure.

My argument is that we never had the power to pass single payer, so it's totally irrelevant whether we would have preferred to pass single payer than to pass the individual mandate.

I don't think SP was ever really in play. I think Public Option was. In the end, I think the smart move was to pass IM politically, and I've highlighted in the past why that is. But that's only because Republicans are good at politics and I think they would have challenged it in the courts and gotten it struck down and Mitt would seem like a viable alternative.

As I said, the ability to steer the conversation further to the right despite not being in power means you're good at politics. Republicans have moved further to the right so effectively, they've pushed Obama further to the right as well. Considering this President campaigned on a set of principles and won landslide elections and a super majority, his inability to carry out those objectives in the way he campaigned shows the other side's political strength.

Okay, so you ARE operating off the assumption that Obama's election made the passage of a health care plan inevitable and the only question was which one.

I think that's a very unwarranted assumption! Lots of progressives have been elected in the last hundred years who didn't succeed in passing health care. What makes you so confident that anything was possible here?

Moreover, even assuming that you're right, you're totally failing to count that change. Before 2008, health care reform was an impossibility. If one election made it guaranteed, then that itself is a huge victory for liberals. It seems pretty unfair to just ignore that huge shift in the status quo in order to measure the eventual outcome from a different point so that it can be judged a win for the GOP.

That's how all liberal agendas get passed though. Liberalism is almost always ahead of the country, it's why its PROGRESSive. At some point, the country catches up and then it's about how effectively conservatives can steer the ultimate legislation to the right when they can no longer stop it. I mean, people have been talking about it for a 100 years to convince the country that universal health care is a good thing. But it's also irrational to assume that it would never come to a head and get to a point where passing it was a real possibility and even something voters supported (in this case by voting for a president who called it a "right" and campaigned consistently on it).


Take something like climate change legislation. At some point it's going to happen. The facts are on our side. But when it happens, the question is which form of legislation actually gets passed and how much power conservatives have to water it down. If your argument is that "any climate change legislation is a win for liberals" that's fine. But I disagree, it's better than the alternative, sure, but given the political realities at the time you have to judge how the final bill comes out.

I think as a general rule, when you have the facts on your side and you can't convince the country - you're doing a bad job at politics anyway but that's understandably a harder job then just winning the legislative battle in Congress.

 

[Black Mamba]

Again I disagree. You underestimate how good Candidate Obama is and how effective his campaign was at all levels. His will go down as one of the best campaigns ever.

His turn out the vote staff was excellent. But you're nuts if you think Obama won in 2012 because of who he was rather than what the GOP offered. If Obama faced a rational party, he'd have lost comfortably.

Beyond that, you can't win primaries by appealing to the median voter. Especially not in a structure with closed primaries where voters take their marching orders from talk radio. So if you want to play in the general election, especially these last 6 years, you have to veer to the right. It's also not unique to this time. LBJ passed civil rights, gave the south to the "other side for a generation" and the Republicans had the white house for 20 of the next 24 years. You can't win elections if you sacrifice your base in that way. And nothing riles up the conservative base more than doing something for brown and black people. Which is why conservative politicians are struggling to keep their base and pick up minority votes.

You've just described why the GOP is bad at politics for me. It's because all their candidates, save one (and Newt who just wanted money), was far right that caused all this. Any rational party would have propped up all moderate save one like the Dems did in 2008. All the Dems, save Kucinich, looked the same and moderate. GOP as well in 2008. Come 2012, they did it backwards which is bad politics. And their rabid base is that way because of bad politics. The bad politics created that monster. If the national party was more moderate and rational, it never would have happened.

Like, your paragraph was exactly my point.

Republican politicians don't control their base, talk radio does. And talk radio hosts, for purely financial reasons, need to keep their base as extreme as possible. If they sound like Joe Scarborough or Steve Schmidt, those listeners won't have the same cult of personality around them.

Which never was a problem until the politicians fed into it starting after 2008. Rush has been around forever but never controlled shit until politicians let him. Now they lost control. Bad politics.

As I said, the ability to steer the conversation further to the right despite not being in power means you're good at politics. Republicans have moved further to the right so effectively, they've pushed Obama further to the right as well. Considering this President campaigned on a set of principles and won landslide elections and a super majority, his inability to carry out those objectives in the way he campaigned shows the other side's political strength.

But it wasn't steered to the right because of Republicans, it was because of democrats. The democrats who aren't liberal economically but are socially. If the few Dems weren't as naturally conservative, it would have passed.

I think as a general rule, when you have the facts on your side and you can't convince the country - you're doing a bad job at politics anyway but that's understandably a harder job then just winning the legislative battle in Congress.

That's not always "bad at politics" or whatever. The Earth is over 6000 years old and the facts are by far on my sad, but even if I am the greatest orator the world has ever seen, even if I am someone who everyone loves personally even when they disagree with me, even if I am considered the brightest person in the world (btw all these things are also factually true), I will still not convince a huge segment of this population that the Earth is billions of years old rather than 6000 years old.

It's not as simple as you make it sound.

 

[alstein]

I think Romney would have a better shot in 2016.


More people in the United States are on the wrong side of the history now than there were in 2012. For example, it's discouraging to me that rather than focusing on climate change as a reason to vote Democrat, people instead cling to Supreme Court justices. Yes, having a better court is a great reason to vote Democrat. However, climate change is a far more important issue than Supreme Court justices. Under a Romney administration say hello to a polluter's future.

It's a lot easier to get CC legislature when the Supreme Court won't rule it unconsitutional to suit their plutocratic whims.

 

[jamesinclair]

GOP candidate for governor.

Just two days after the historic People’s Climate March, Republican candidate for governor of California Neel Kashkari has decided to celebrate by inviting people to a Burbank gas station to smash a toy “crazy train” (that’d be his term for high speed rail) and in return get a $25 gift card for gasoline.

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2014/09/smash-a-toy-train-get-25-worth-of-gas/

Neel Kashkari @neelkashkari
Follow

First 100 people to smash the crazy train tomorrow get $25 free gas! 4:30pm Mobil 349 S Glenoaks, Burbank.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"I think it's certainly a question that we need to ask ourselves — whether or not marijuana is as serious a drug as is heroin," Holder said. "[T]he question of whether or not they should be in the same category is something that I think we need to ask ourselves, and use science as the basis for making that determination."

-Holder


Laying the path for reclassification?

 

[Black Mamba]

-Holder


Laying the path for reclassification?

I wish...

It won't be done until after 2016 though, IMO.

It's a crime that it's a schedule I classification.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I wish...

It won't be done until after 2016 though, IMO.

It's a crime that it's a schedule I classification.

I can see it undergoing a "Review" in the next congress. Dangling something for people to talk about in 2016. Stays away from the legalization.

People need to also realize we have treaty obligations to keep it illegal. We need to rewrite them.


Also I liked this article on Obama's foreign policy, I share many military views and explains why I like him so much and am comfortable with both his military actions and restraint. Not one or another.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/683852...&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=wednesday

Obama's fundamental worldview: we're headed for a better future

The headlines have been pretty grim this year — the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)'s mass slaughter and beheadings, Russia's invasion(s) of Ukraine, the terrifyingly rapid spread of Ebola, and the deep-seated American racism on display in Ferguson, Missouri. So for all that, the basic cheeriness of Obama's message at the UN might seem a bit jarring.

"I often tell young people in the United States that this is the best time in human history to be born," the president said, despite all of these troubles. As it happens, the best evidence we have says he's right. Around the world, people are living longer and freer lives now than they ever have. Disease and poverty are in decline. Wars are less common, and they kill fewer people even when they do happen.

But why is everything looking so (relatively) sunny? Here we get to the core of Obama's speech: the world is improving because we have decided to improve it. Organizations like the UN and NATO channel collective resources into solving problems like war, disease, and poverty — pushing towards a better future.

The central thrust of Obama's speech, then, is that these global institutions must be defended and expanded if our current golden age is to be preserved. This line, fairly early in the speech, is the Rosetta Stone for Obama's vision: "If we lift our eyes beyond our borders — if we think globally and act cooperatively — we can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age."

Even the world's most challenging collective action problem, climate change, can be approached in this way. "America is pursuing ambitious reductions in our carbon emissions," he said, "but we can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every major power."

Obama's most basic belief is that the international order is working. But that doesn't mean its survival is guaranteed.

Obama's fundamental policy: destroy the threats to this system


Sandwiched between Obama's optimistic opening and closing remarks, however, were long disquisitions on two pressing policy problems: Ukraine and ISIS. It might seem jarring that a speech about hope turned so quickly to war. But as upbeat as Obama might sound, his foreign policy has more often than not taken some pretty dark turns when it comes to questions of war and peace.

In Obama's mind, this is totally consistent. He sees the United States and its military as the protectors of the international system — and justified in acting, even unilaterally, to protect it. This passage is absolutely crucial to understanding what he's getting at:

I can promise you that the United States of America will not be distracted or deterred from what must be done. We are heirs to a proud legacy of freedom, and we are prepared to do what is necessary to secure that legacy for generations to come. Join us in this common mission, for today's children and tomorrow's.

Obama defines America's own mission — its "proud legacy of freedom" — as being essentially identical with the quest for global freedom. "Joining America" means joining in the mission of improving the world. Russia and ISIS, by extension, are defined as outside of the global community.

That's because, for Obama, they threaten the very foundations on which international progress rests. "Russia's actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order," he said. They embody "a vision of the world in which might makes right — a world in which one nation's borders can be redrawn by another." They're the fundamental antithesis of Obama's cooperative, egalitarian vision of how the world works.

Ditto ISIS. "Humanity's future depends on us uniting against those who would divide us along fault lines of tribe or sect; race or religion," he said. So, "first, the terrorist group known as [ISIS] must be degraded, and ultimately destroyed."

Because Obama also has a somewhat skeptical view of what American military force alone can accomplish, among other reasons, he hasn't answered either Russia or ISIS with full-scale war. But he has taken actions that, in the context of his otherwise quite restrained foreign policy, are big: slapping the strictest sanctions on Russia since the Cold War, and launching a concerted air campaign to root ISIS out of its sanctuaries in Iraq and Syria.

When you view Obama's foreign policy through the lens of defending the global order, it starts to make a lot more sense. Take, for example, his measured China policy and "reset" with Russia early in his Presidency. Obama wants to welcome powerful nations into the international fold, and get them cooperating through organizations like the UN rather than trying to topple or skirt the current order. China looks to be playing ball. Russia isn't so much, and Obama's policy changed accordingly (arguably too little and too late, but changed nonetheless).

Ditto his counterterrorism policy. There's a very strong case that Obama's targeted killing campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan violates international law, and is ethically dubious in any case. But Obama believes that defeating al-Qaeda is, ultimately, necessary to protect the United States and defend the global order from a violent group fundamentally opposed to it. In short, you have to violate international law in order to save it.

There is a lot to criticize in this worldview, as well as Obama's means of implementing it. But to criticize Obama's foreign policy, we must first understand it. And, good or bad, Obama's UN speech was revelatory: It finally explains why he talks like a liberal but acts like a realist. Obama is using realist policies to build a liberal order. It's a theory that sounds idealistic and patriotic when laid out in a UN address, but in practice it looks pretty damn grimy.

 

[Vahagn]

So just putting this out there. Michelle left to Camp David separately. She didn't go with the President or the kids. He also came down and did the "latte salute" and she didn't walk down with him.


When I saw Beyonce not react in the elevator the first thing I thought was "Jay must have cheated on her". I'm really hoping something isn't going on there between them.

I said, just putting it out there. It's like 90% nothing. But if something does come to light, I wouldn't be too surprised.

Also I liked this article on Obama's foreign policy, I share many military views and explains why I like him so much and am comfortable with both his military actions and restraint. Not one or another.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/683852...&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=wednesday

I wonder if anyone's actually read his books or paid heavy attention to his speeches. His foreign policy seems confusing because it's distorted and misunderstood. He's not a pacifist, he never has been. He also hates war and imperialistic occupation. He basically wants to keep the US safe, use targeted military force to take out what he deems to be threats, and risk as few American lives as possible. Beyond that he wants to build as many international alliances as possible and use non-violent methods to keep nation states in line. He draws a distinction between a country/formal government and an independent group. That's something that Bush never did. For Bush, Al Queda and Afghanistan were one and the same. I think that Libya was an exception to this rule, but that was a great teaching moment that validated his original thought process of making sure that regime change wasn't on the menu.

 

[Black Mamba]

So just putting this out there. Michelle left to Camp David separately. She didn't go with the President or the kids. He also came down and did the "latte salute" and she didn't walk down with him.


When I saw Beyonce not react in the elevator the first thing I thought was (Jay must have cheated on her). I'm really hoping something isn't going on there between them.

 

[RustyNails]

So my brother went for notary certification service at cook county office and guess what, the lady at the front was playing candy crush and got rude with him for asking questions and went back to playing after she found out his document had notary from the wrong commission. He became upset at her attitude and complained to the supervisor who apologized but defended the lady's behaviour.


Tax dollars at work etc.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So just putting this out there. Michelle left to Camp David separately. She didn't go with the President or the kids. He also came down and did the "latte salute" and she didn't walk down with him.


When I saw Beyonce not react in the elevator the first thing I thought was "Jay must have cheated on her". I'm really hoping something isn't going on there between them.

Hillary was in DC recently.