Politics
More PoliticsDemocrats, Forever Changed
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
David Karp / SIPA
By pressing ahead on health care, President Obama is ending a decades-long internal debate within his party—and the Democratic Party will never be the same.
This week’s last-ditch health care push may or may not prove the defining battle of Barack Obama’s presidency. It may or may not prove a defining moment in the history of the American welfare state. But here’s a good bet: The Democratic Party will never be the same.
For close to a decade now, Democrats have been arguing with each other about what kind of country this is, and what kind of party they should be. On one side stands a group of politicians, consultants and wonks who believe that America is, at its core, a pretty conservative place. These Democrats form something of a political generation. In their youth, they saw their party move left during Vietnam and get booted from power in 1968. Then they saw George McGovern, the most left-wing major party presidential candidate of the twentieth century, lose 49 states. Then they saw Jimmy Carter’s presidency destroyed in part because he looked weak during the Iran hostage crisis. Then they saw Ronald Reagan, once considered as an unelectable right-wing nut, become the most popular president of their adult lives.
In the late 1980s, they responded to these disasters by creating the Democratic Leadership Council, which pushed the party to the right on welfare, taxes, trade, crime and defense. They claimed vindication when a president of the DLC, Bill Clinton, became president, and claimed double vindication when, after Clinton pushed for universal health care and got creamed in 1994, he won reelection two years later by triangulating against the liberals in his own party.
For this generation of Democrats, which includes Al From, Mark Penn, Joe Lieberman, William Galston, Elaine Kamarck, Dick Morris, Ed Koch, Jane Harman, Evan Bayh, and to some extent Bill and Hillary Clinton, being a liberal is like walking past a bear. Move cautiously and reassuringly and the bear will purr contentedly. But make any sudden or threatening gestures, and you’ll be mauled because, fundamentally, the bear distrusts liberals. As Galston and Kamarck wrote in their famed 1989 essay “The Politics of Evasion”—a document that helped define the “don’t scare the bear” wing of the party—Democrats can pass liberal programs “but these programs must be shaped and defended within an inhospitable ideological climate.” To pretend that the American people are liberal at heart is to evade political reality, with devastating results.
By the late 1990s, “don’t scare the bear” Democrats pretty much dominated Washington. But in the Bush years, a new faction began to emerge. These Democrats were mostly newer to politics. They had never seen a McGovern or Mondale mauled for being too far to the left. What they had seen was the post-1994 Bill Clinton, who shied away from ambitious liberal reform. And they had seen the Iraq War, which DLC types largely supported, partly out of fear that opposing it would allow Republicans to paint Democrats as soft on defense.
By 2003, this new group of Democrats was angry as hell. The Iraq War, which party elders had mostly backed, was proving a disaster, and to make matters worse, Republicans were clobbering Democrats as weak anyway. So these Democrats began fashioning a different theory: Perhaps the problem wasn’t that Democrats looked weak because they were too liberal, perhaps the problem was that Democrats looked weak because they didn’t stand up for what they really believed. In 2005, the historian Rick Perlstein—who became something of a hero to these folks—published a book entitled The Stock Ticker and the Super Jumbo. Republicans, he argued, were like Boeing: a company that persevered in building a super jumbo airplane even when the market was bad, and thus built a dominant brand. Democrats were like the stock ticker, constantly shifting with the public mood and thus winning momentary victories but failing to build a brand people could identify with.
To change, Perlstein argued, “Democrats need to make commitments, or a network of commitments, that do not waver from election to election.” They must stick with them “even if they don’t succeed” at any given moment because doing unpopular things because you believe in them convinces Americans that you have core beliefs, which in the long term strengthens your brand.
In 2004, Howard Dean ran as the suberjumbo candidate for president, insisting that his opponents for the Democratic nomination, most of whom had supported the Iraq War, needed a “backbone transplant.” Dean lost, but his message won. His campaign helped to catalyze the “netroots”—blogs like Daily Kos and organizations like MoveOn—which told the story of the bear a very different way. In their version, Democrats didn’t get mauled because they made sudden, aggressive moves. After all, the Clinton and Bush-era Democrats hadn’t been aggressive at all. They had been mauled for precisely the opposite reason: because they didn’t fight back. Show the bear that you’re not afraid, they argued—look tough and defiant rather than timid and craven—and you’ll gain respect. In 2006, two liberal social scientists, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, answered Galston and Kamarck’s 1989 essay in a paper entitled, “The Politics of Definition.” The ideological climate, they argued, wasn’t inhospitable to liberals. It was inhospitable to weathervanes. If Democrats defined themselves—if they stood up for their beliefs in the face of political threats—they would win in the end.
Obama has chosen Karl Rove’s politics of base mobilization over Dick Morris’s politics of crossover appeal, with consequences not merely for how he campaigns for Democrats in 2010, but for he campaigns for himself in 2012.
In Bush’s second term, the Halpin and Teixeira faction grew stronger. Congressional Democrats held firm against Bush’s effort to partially privatize Social Security, and forced him to back down. The netroots were further buoyed by the 2006 midterms, when Democrats ran against the Iraq War, and won control of Congress. Perhaps the Democrats were building their superjumbo after all.
During the 2008 presidential primaries, each of the Democratic Party’s factions had a candidate. The DLC types—led by Mark Penn—mostly backed Hillary Clinton, who refused to repudiate her vote for the Iraq War, took a hawkish line on Iran and defended her husband’s centrist record. Many in the superjumbo faction, by contrast, signed on with John Edwards, who embraced the netroots’ argument that in an era of partisan polarization, Democrats had to stop searching for the political center and beat Karl Rove at his own game.
The mystery candidate was Barack Obama. On the one hand, he attacked Hillary Clinton—and by extension the DLC Democrats more generally—for living in fear of the bear. “Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried about what Mitt [Romney] or Rudy [Giuliani] might say about us just won’t do,” he declared. “If we are really serious about winning this election Democrats, we can’t live in fear of losing it.”
With rhetoric like this, and his opposition to the Iraq War, Obama attracted his share of superjumbo Democrats. But other netroots activists harbored suspicions. For while Obama was telling Democrats to hold fast to their core beliefs, he was also depicting himself as the candidate who could transcend the red-blue divide. If Obama struck some in the netroots as a more polished Howard Dean, a guy who wanted to dream big and fight hard, he struck others as a more polished Joe Lieberman, a guy who wanted to be loved on the other side of the aisle.
Nothing in Obama’s first year resolved that ambiguity. He passed a stimulus bill that Republicans called too big but many liberals called too small. He altered some of Bush’s policies on civil liberties, but kept others. He sent more troops to Afghanistan, but set a deadline for their withdrawal. He pushed a big health care reform, but didn’t fight for a public option. A year into Obama’s presidency, the Democratic Party’s two factions could each still credibly claim him as its own, which is to say, the decade-old argument lingered on.
Now it is over. When Scott Brown won his Senate seat, he made Obama choose. On the one hand, he handed the White House an excuse to abandon comprehensive reform and return to the incremental, small-bore approach that Clinton pursued after 1994. The Brown victory, in fact, seemed to illustrate the “don’t scare the bear” theory perfectly. Obama had passed the stimulus and bailed out the banks and taken over part of the auto industry and for the American people, it was too much liberal activism too fast. Polls not only showed Americans turning against Obama’s health care bill, they showed them turning against big government more generally. Continuing to pursue comprehensive reform in this inhospitable environment, warned former Carter pollster Patrick Caddell and former Clinton pollster Douglas Schoen, in language that echoed “the Politics of Evasion,” would bring political calamity. “Wishing, praying or pretending” that the American people support health care reform more than they do, they insisted, “will not change these outcomes.”
Superjumbo Democrats, by contrast, argued that the public wasn’t so much anti-reform as they were anti-the legislative process that had produced reform. But more fundamentally, they argued that the American people would respect Democrats for not backing down in the face of adversity. The party might still lose seats this fall, but over time health care reform would prove popular, and the party’s willingness to fight for it would strengthen the Democratic brand.
Why exactly Obama—advised by David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel and Valerie Jarrett—decided to double down on health care remains unclear. But it’s a good bet that President Hillary Clinton—advised by Mark Penn—would have acted differently. And in acting the way he did, Obama has turned himself into a superjumbo Democrat. For the foreseeable future, he has forfeited any chance of bridging the red-blue divide. Prominent Republicans have already announced that if Democrats try to pass health care via reconciliation, they will not work across the aisle to pass anything major this year. Conversely, Obama has cemented his bond with the netroots. It doesn’t really matter that the health care reform bill he is fighting for isn’t particularly left-wing. For the netroots, a politicians’ ideological purity has always been less important than his willingness to resist pressure from the other side, which is exactly what Obama has just done.
Whether health care reform passes or not, Obama has embraced polarization over triangulation. He has chosen Karl Rove’s politics of base mobilization over Dick Morris’s politics of crossover appeal, with consequences not merely for how he campaigns for Democrats in 2010, but for he campaigns for himself in 2012. And that’s a disaster for “don’t scare the bear” Democrats whether Obamacare passes or not. The reason is that the DLC wing of the party is much more top-down than the MoveOn wing. It has always wielded influence primarily through elected leaders rather than grassroots activists. But today, Obama is the only leader in the Democratic Party who really matters. As the retirement of Evan Bayh illustrates, there are few nationally prominent DLC-aligned politicians left. (The one person who could have rallied that faction of the party against Obama is now his secretary of state). The DLC wing’s best hope for relevance, therefore, was that Obama himself would restrain the party’s base, that his White House would nurture a new generation of centrist candidates.
That hope is now gone. From top to bottom, Democrats have decided to bet the party’s future on the belief that Americans prefer bold liberals to cautious ones. Now it’s up to the bear.
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
YOUR FRIENDS
Collapse at CBS News
Rebecca Dana is a senior correspondent for The Daily Beast. A former editor and reporter for The Wall Street Journal, she has also written for The New York Times, The New York Observer, Rolling Stone, and Slate, among other publications.
The Shadow Over Obama’s Address
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono.
Does Diet Soda Make You Fat?
Susan B. Roberts, PhD is Professor of Nutrition and Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts University and author of The "I" Diet weight-loss program. Weight loss on this program averages 16 pounds in 8 weeks and 30 pounds in 5 months.
Grow a Pair, Democrats
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
America Has Disgraced Itself
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Obama Saved Detroit
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
redmanrt
Taking off a mask doesn't mean making a change.
This user is no longer registered.
lordmi
he lost support because of fooled people -.
It seems You also are fooled, putting here the list of goals, that were never on President's table.
Limited knowledge and outlook they do not allow neither to see thing clear nor to think.
same story - we still have Very low average level of education....
estcruzer
Obama's agenda: 1) Clean up the Horrible mess left by George Bush, 2) Clean up the Horrible messes left by the Republicans, Neocons and Global Big Business, 3) Attack the Big Problems American's face, 4) Do something nice for Democrats (read: America's middle and lower classes who didn't get to participate in the massive wealth concentration of the Bush years like the super rich top 1%).
Republican Agenda: Say NO.
Johnnyappleseed
You can fool some people, some of the time!
You fool most people, most of the time!
You can not fool all the people, all the time!
Lincoln
canditaylor68
@lordmi--
Are you saying that people are too stupid to believe Obama's lies, or that you are stupid and believe Obama's lies? Obama is a politician like the rest of the politicians that came before him. He has done nothing to improve America and EVERYTHING to put taxpayer monies into the pockets of Big Pharma, banks, car dealerships, union bosses, Acorn registrants,lobbyists, and the healthcare insurance industry. If you really think that this new hc bill will help Americans, think again.The mandate puts billions of dollars into the profit coffers of the healthcare insurance industry. Something that Americans arent really concerned about at the moment. Where are the jobs? Please dont say healthcare will create jobs, it will only create bureaucracy, and another entitlement that will go bankrupt. Did you hear social security is now pulling in its IOU's from the Fed govt? Yes the Fed govt has to now borrow to pay back social security for all the borrowing its done in the past and guess what, they cant the Fed is broke. They have to borrow from the future to pay for the past. Yes we have a low level of education-the Dem led teachers unions have been in charge of it for many years now and the United States is beginning to see and be quite alarmed at what Dem leadership has done to our education system.
possumdearie
Americans voted for a leader, and they wanted results. Bush!!ELEVENTY is thin gruel going into Obama's second year in office. He has nationalized the auto industry and banking. Democrats are pushing to take over healthcare, one sixth of our economy, and student loans. The taxpayer is on the hook for $5 trillion of Fannie Mae debt, and that is not on the balance sheet with the $14 trillion we all know about. TRILLION.
No more excuses. At least acknowledge there is a problem and put the brakes on the spending.
canditaylor68
@estcruzer--
4) Do something nice for Democrats (read: America's middle and lower classes who didn't get to participate in the massive wealth concentration of the Bush years like the super rich top 1%).
YOU ARE MISINFORMED ABOUT THIS---
From 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to -4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.
Tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers. The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes. Middle class Americans got to keep more of their income and took more subsidies out of the income tax system. These subsidies were paid for by a higher tax rate on those "rich" people. Funny thing is Ive seen lots of Democrat millionaires lately, including many who havent paid their taxes, Rangel, Geithner, Dodds, Daschle...
donabernathy
"Very low average level of education..."
now that you understand your problem, hopefully, you'll take action
roflmao
klentz
estcruzer:
We've been headed down this road to disaster since the Great Society was introduced in LBJ's administration. Bush was merely a contributer to the situation. Both Democrats and Republicans have followed the mantra of increasing entitlement spending while outsourcing domestic jobs. in 1968 the Military took up 45% of the budget, while social programs accounted for a combined 15%
Now the military is 19% of the federal budget while entitlement spending will devour 40% of Obama's new budget. Another 5% goes to interest on the national debt. This is simply unsustainable. I've just graduated from 5 years of school with two degrees and make a miserable 25,000 a year while trying to find an entry level job. So you would consider me lower class. However, I don't want a movement of wealth to benefit me. Why? because in the end it's stealing from Peter to give to Paul. I know that I will work hard enough to eventually achieve a modest income. That's how this country used to do it before we relied on what now takes up 40% of our budget. Look at Greece if you want a picture for what we are heading for.
Republican and Democrat Agenda of breaking America: Say NO.
claytonbigsby
canditaylor68
No. You would be wrong on this.
Here is a summary.
In 1986, the top 1% had 11.299% of all income. In 2006, they had 22.062%. In order to be in the top 1% you need a household AGI of $388,806.
In 1986, the bottom 50% had 16.661% of all income. In 2006, they had 12.515%. In order to be in the bottom 50% you need a household income of less than $31,987. In 1986, that number was $15,786. But in 2006 dollars, that 1986 number is $31,823. Thus, in real terms, the bottom 50% has only gained $164 in twenty years. The lower income of the top 1% has gone from $218,543 to $388,806 - a gain of $170,263. Their average gain was no doubt much higher since their total income went from $524.48 billion in 1986 (in constant 2006 dollars) to $1,791.886 billion in 2006. It more than tripled, while total income for the bottom 50% went from $773.55 billion to $1,016 billion in 2006 - a gain of only 31%, which is even smaller if you consider that population grew by 22.2% between 1990 and 2007, and by 24.6% from 1980 to 2000. (at this point I cannot find population figures for 1986 and 2006.)
The tax side is quite astounding as well. In 1986, the top 1% paid an average tax rate of 33.13%. This fell to 26.4% in 1987 (thanks to the Gipper) and to a low of 23.246 by 1990. It climbed to 25.05% in 1992 and to 28.01 in 1993 and was over 27% until 2002 when it was 27.248%. Then it went to 24.31% to 23.49% to 23.13% and finally to 22.79% in 2006.
The revenue that could have been taken in if tax rates on the top 1% had stayed the same is a staggering $1.287 Trillion. But 43.8% of that comes from just the last 4 years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, and probably continues into 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Of course, to the David Koch types (of Americans for Prosperity), those lower tax rates for the rich have created prosperity. The data, however, shows that the prosperity has been created mostly for the prosperous. As their share of the pie has gone from 11.3% to 22%. Which is why that organization really needs to be called "Americans for the Prosperous".
ChanRobt
lordmi, you had better learn to express yourself with far more refined prose before you accuse others of "Very low average level of education".
Why, for starters, the capital 'v'?
RogueBeast
claytonbigsby, compare your statistics to America's immigration policy over that same period. We have allowed the legal and illegal immigration of people that are net users of public services....which has also pushed marginal workers to the unemployment lines. I don't think that's the fault of tax policy in the last 30 years.
jobert
claytonbigsby, I love your username. Thanks for the reminder of a great comedy sketch.
PS--Republicans always like to say that the wealthy pay the most in taxes, but the reality is that they pay a smaller percentage of their income (overall, after factoring in loopholes and tax breaks) than the middle class. Warren Buffett admitted as much--he said his secretary paid more in taxes as a percentage of her salary than he did.
cp4three2
@claytonbigsby
You're using the old shell game that skews the truth. There is no giant stash of wealth in which the entire takes from. Comparing the growth of the upper 1% and comparing that growth to the bottom 50% is ludicrous. Wealth is created and is also fluid. Those that resided in the top 10% in 1980 are not the same people that are in it today. Many that were in the bottom 10% actually have climbed out of that bracket and a big chunk of them are actually in the top 10%. What you're saying is assuming that if you are poor or rich you will always remain poor or rich.
A better and more accurate reflection of what the the tax cuts did would be to compare the growth of the bottom 10% from 1980 to 1990 and compare them to other ten year eras. You'll see that the the 80s were pretty good to the middle class.
This is where liberals point to "household incomes" as the preferred metric. Of course when people are poorer they tend to live in larger households, children staying with parents, seniors living with their children. This actually boosts the income level of a "household" because there are more people living in it. When there's growth in the bottom brackets, people move out and we see "households" with only 1 or 2 people in them, thus the "household income" goes actually goes down or because of growth stays about the same.
Nice try.
JohnConnughton
I've been registered independent over 30 years, Banjo. I worked for Obama's election in 2008 and as of now I will again in 2012. Along the way I've seen a number of Democrats and Republicans I do not like.
Something you have to remember when deciding who to vote for is, what are the qualities of the opponent? Obama could speak intelligently and compassionately, but what drove me as much as that 2 years ago was fear of a McCain-Palin ticket in the White House. McCain was just a totally unqualified extension of Bush and Palin is still just unspeakable.
For me Obama is not a slam-dunk in 2012. If the Republicans had a more-seasoned Scott Brown I'd be paying close attention. But who do they have? Mitt Romney might have impressed me-until he said recently that Sarah Palin was qualified, which means he is not.
We will see. But do not make assumptions about independents. We are, by definition, not to be assumed.
Volunteer
Have you really turned against Mitt Romney because he declined to insult a woman with great popularity and influence among a group of voters he'll need to win the Republican primary? You have no idea what Romney really thinks of Sarah Palin. Saying she's qualified is like Obama saying of Joe Biden that "nobody messes with Joe." It would have been impolitic to say what everyone really thinks: "No one takes Joe seriously."
I'm afraid you're an example of the most frustrating and frightening fact of American politics: a huge number of the swing voters who decide elections are naive and/or irrational. You can consider supporting Obama or "a more seasoned Scott Brown" in 2012 -- do you have any understanding of political ideology and how that determines what people do when they're in office? Or at least, what they want to do.
wyorich
How about Congressman Paul Ryan (WI)? In the "summit" he seemed respectful of both the President and the Office. He had legitimate concerns, and he articulated those concerns brilliantly. He may be too much of a "wonk", but his understanding of the proposed Health Care Legislation is obviously second to none. His ability to counter-punch with the Dems in the room, including the President, to disagree without being disagreeable, and to quietly force the President into a corner, where he stated, "Paul, I don't want to get bogged down in the numbers", exposed the "summit" and the President's agenda for what it was, a phony confrontation where the brilliant young President was going to "show" the Republicans for who they really were, and then make a full-court press for passage without their imput. Well, he's making that push, but it will be even more difficult if the American public tuned in to watch Congressman Ryan thump President Obama in the arena of ideas. That is what will sway the Independent voters. Not great speeches, not big planes (or whatever Petey was rambling on about), but effective, reasoned solutions to the problems we face today.
clearthinker
John, I respect your point of view, but I think you and this author are missing the bigger picture. Liberals keep thinking the country is moving further left, but it never does. It doesn't matter whether the left is "tough enough" or not or that Republicans have been unafraid. The Republicans will always have an advantage over the far left simply because Americans relate more to values described in the Republican Party. If a party goes too far to an extreme whether too far right or too far left, the country usually recoils. This president has tried to stay somewhere in the middle, but his associates are rather far left and this doesn't bode well with the American people. Clinton enjoyed a second term because he was willing to move back to the center and Obama has not shown that he is willing to do this. Obama is trying to be all things to all people. The "netroots" people will never find favor with a majority of Americans. The left needs to get their head out of the sand and accept that as truth. If you are afraid of "scaring the bear" you need to start trying to figure out why your policies scare him in the first place. Maybe it's because the policies of the far left are just not what the American people want, maybe not American to begin with.
AlanD2
wyorich: Yes, let's consider Congressman Paul Ryan.
His proposed budget plan
* cuts taxes on the rich by 50%.
* raises taxes for the bottom 90% of all Americans,
* eliminates Medicare,
* privatizes Social Security, and
* would not reduce our national debt despite all this.
Ryan's a true-blue Republican. Help the wealthy and screw the rest of America.
Republicans: The party of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
JohnConnughton
Hello clearthinker. Thanks for the note.
Marx was correct to note that things change by swinging in action-reaction sequence, but the fundamental is that things change. Our social order, our politics, cannot freeze up beause the world does not freeze up-each year we face new challenges like more people and new sciences.
Progressive people often have a need for major change in their own lifetimes, and they overreach. People who do not want any change at all in their lifetimes live pointless lives, because when you stop moving that means you're dead.
In politics we need both people trying to steer and people riding the brakes, but let's admit first that we are going somewhere.
Volunteer,
it does not matter what Mitt Romney REALLY thinks of Sarah Palin, but if it is something other than what he said then what does that make him? I honor him at his word, and since in my opinion Ms. Palin is the least qualified person I've ever even heard of on a national stage, I can only conclude for me that his judgement is not sound. I am glad I found out in time, and I appreciate his honesty.
wyorich,
thank you for the tip. If Paul Ryan makes it into the finals you may be sure I will give him careful consideration, as I will whoever makes it there.
Your analysis makes me smile. That healthcare summit was indeed no more than an opportunity to look good and to demonstrate/expose willingness/unwillingness to work together.
possumdearie
John Connughton is right that every election, to a degree, is a referendum on the incumbent. In 2008, John McCain was running against Obama. Sarah Palin wasn't the top of the ticket. However, McCain wasn't able to separate himself from Bush. Also, a good portion of the base hated him. Losing your base and losing real independents (nice try, John Connughton) costs you an election. That's where Obama is now.
clearthinker
I agree with your position to a degree. The right is the brakes, the left is the accelerator, but the independents generally control the steering wheel. Most independents hang out around the middle-right. To completely transform the American idea is usually not popular with independents.
whipmawhopma
Volunteer - Your reply to JohnConnughton - "I'm afraid you're an example of the most frustrating and frightening fact of American politics: a huge number of the swing voters who decide elections are naive and/or irrational."
No offense, but I think that you are incorrect. The most frustrating and frightening fact of American politics is the less than stellar choices that the twin parties field as candidates for POTUS every four years.
Part of the reason I voted for Obama as POTUS was that feeling that if I was going vote for a non-conservative, then it might as well be the Democratic non-conservative, the genuine article, just to see what happens.
And if you think things would be a whole better had McCain won, well you're entitled your opinion, just as I am sure that we'd already be in a new war somewhere in the Middle East and\or the Caucasus right about now, and that POTUS McCain would have been killed by the stress of office, and that POTUS Palin would be making all that 2012 end of the world nonsense being shown on NatGeo and the History Channel actually come true.
The Republicans need to come up with a real conservative. Someone who actually minds the health of the national economy, so that it creates lots of jobs (for American citizens) that generate lots of tax revenue to pay for a Swiss style national health care system, as well as a powerful military, and also stays out of people's personal business, like whether or not two consenting adults can marry or own a handgun or smoke dope - as long it's subject to the same kind of rules as alcohol use.
In closing, what seems like swing voters being 'naive and/or irrational' is really a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, accompanied by a reasonable fear of not picking the least worst one.
JohnConnughton
To whipmawhopma: thanks, good commentary.
SmartyPants
The main reason he has lost support is because of the biased media reporting. The media shapes opinion in this country and because it is all corporate owned we get a very right winged skewed message with very little of substance. If Americans could just get some honest reporting and if the media would stop treating all the right wing BS as something that is to be seriously considered then we would not be having this problem.
This user is no longer registered.
wyorich
You're kidding, right?
ZTHEZS
You sound like Obama. Blame someone, or something else for your short commings. When is he gone to accept his incompetence?
Fang1944
The media has always been afraid to go after the right.
When Reagan began acting senile as all get-out, when his administration had one corruption scandal after another, when he tripled the national debt, they didn't say much of anything.
URDRWHO
You are joking aren't you?! Such a naive post that expects people to consider that CNN, CBS,NBC and MSNBC are right wing is very funny.
You should be a comedian. I need some more humor, do you have anymore? Next you'll try and tell us that college students didn't vote for Obama.
AlanD2
Well said, SmartyPants.
I see the other people replying to you (except Fang1) are merely repeating the "MSM is liberal" lie. When will they stop listening to Fox News?
possumdearie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU_mMwCNl0M
This sounds much like much of our MSM coverage! How many journalists called Americans teabaggers? When the media turns on citizens exercising their First Amendment rights and lampoons them with sexual innuendo, bias is a problem.
Where was the media when Obama tripled the national debt? FYI, Reagan never did. The Washington Post barely mentioned it. During the Bush years the federal budget was expanded by a historic $700 billion through 2008. Obama has ALREADY added another trillion.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
superdad
SmartyPants, Nice joke Right! Either you are naive or drugged beyond comprehension
claytonbigsby
Why does the left wing media keep putting Dick Cheney and his 5th deferment on TV.
Anybody.
whipmawhopma
claytonbigsby - In politics Cheney plays the role that Gabby Hayes did in many a western movie, whereas POTUS Obama is playing the role that Jay Silverheels did. Unfortunately there is no one playing the role that Roy Rogers would have. On the other hand, Liz Cheney is doing a creditable Snidely Whiplash, which I think the Dudley Do-Right aspects of POTUS Obama's earnestness-to-do-good brings out.
At least that's what I suspect.
AlanD2
possumdearie asked: "Where was the media when Obama tripled the national debt? FYI, Reagan never did."
Our national debt was about $10 trillion when Obama took office. So you're claiming it is now $30 trillion? What alternate universe do you live in?
While it is true that Reagan didn't quite triple our debt, he did increase it by a factor of 2.8, which is close enough for me.
possumdearie said: "President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008."
In the real world, he added $5 trillion to our national debt during his administration.
Why do you bother with such obvious lies, Possum?
AlanD2
claytonbigsby: Because it's interesting that virtually nobody in the Bush administration - hawkish beyond belief - ever served in our military.
While Bush and Cheney technically may not have been draft dodgers during the Vietnam war, they were for all practical purposes. So much for serving their nation during its time of need.
jobert
I agree with SmartyPants on this one. Liberal media, my foot.
I am glad Obama is "doubling down" on this one. This is what we elected him to do. And I agree that the biggest problem for Democrats is that they are all too often spineless and lacking courage to stand up for their convictions.
From visiting this site a few times, and visiting the comments section, I have already figured out that possumdearie and Banjo1 say the same things over and over, and I don't even try to respond to them.
AlanD2, I have always appreciated your responses, and usually hold the same point of view as you.
JFKDem
Dubya had 9/11 to boost his approval ratings in his first year and then the Iraq war so it took a long time for them to plummet. And why is he an elitist? Because he went to Harvard? Dubya was Yalee, and his daddy was rich, but he's no elitist. This is just another example of fear driven rhetoric that rightys spew out when they are out of power. I expect significant losses this November, but if and when they regain the majority, we'll see how they fail to lead again.
URDRWHO
News flash there JFKDem
Bush is also an elitist but he had a bend toward Capitalist.
Obama is also an elitist but he bends toward Socialism.
JFK would throw water at a socialist like Obama.
AlanD2
What alternate universe are you living in, URDRWHO?
Nice stories, but I'd like to hear something truthful.
possumdearie
Elitist is not where you went to school, but whether you think you have any business telling other people how to live. For those who want to bring up Iraq and nation-building, they hung Saddam Hussein themselves and enjoy free elections instead of being rounded up into gulags or gassed by a dictator.
claytonbigsby
Screw Reagan's old pal Saddam who he sold weapons to that Bush still thought he had but forgot we gave him the OK to gas his own people with.
Did we really have to ruin our economy so we could free the very same people the great Saint Ronnie helped imprison. By supporting Saddam.
Or did you forget their was a reason that Ronnie did support Saddam.
Iran.
Which is it genius.
pacifistgunslinger
1. Bush killed the middle class.
2. Bush went to Ivy league schools and had every advantage money could buy; if you seek elitists, you need look no further than the Bush clan. Obama busted butt to get ahead.
3. Bush may not have been a Marxist, but he and Cheney sure liked doing things Soviet-style.
4, If you seek a Huge Government, look backward to your hero Raygun, spewing small government rhetoric while growing every part of the government.
5. Say what you will, but a least a five-year plan is a plan.
dalelama
Obama is a case study in the failure of affirmative action policies. Why won't he release his college transcipts? Why did he as editor of Harvard Law Review not publish a single article? Why as a State Legislator or US Senator did he not sponsor a single piece of impactful legislation? Why as US President has he not presented a single piece of legislation? Why did he have Bill Ayres write his own "autobiography"? The man is the proverbial empty suit.
Satyricon
Daelama:
I want some of what you're smoking. Minus the paranoia.
Seriously, where did you even come up with some of that stuff?!
lizalou1
Banjo1 - In case it has somehow escaped you, the middle class is already well on it's way toward elimination without any help from the so called "quasi-Marxists." What you are seeing is the American people waking up, smelling the kool-aid and deciding that the Republican answers were really a pig in a poke. People are pissed because they have been "had" and they (perhaps, you) are looking for who to blame. We have only ourselves, as the saying goes.
Shaman
Rubbish. Nobody could achieve the status Bush achieved. He is a loser.
doug-c
@Banjo1
Bush's final approval rating - 22%
Obama's current approval rating - 49%
Obama has a long way to go. Also, Obama's programs are mainly centrist. It's very difficult to have a centrist agenda and remain popular. This is because one way or another both liberals and conservatives won't be satisfied.
Although I disagree with Obama on many issues, I applaud him for being a strong 'super-jumbo' president and trying his best to help the American people.
oakhill1863
yes, the democratic party appears forever changed. health care is THE battle, and if obama wins that battle as expected, there will be no stopping government, because the democratic party will not declare victory and vote itself out of existence.
rather, along with health care, this bill will now hand over the student loan business to the government, to go with 2 auto companies.
next, the democratic party will "discover" that some percentage of americans have no or inadequate housing. the government will then take over the housing market, because as everyone "knows" there has been market distortion created by "speculators" and only the government can "correct" that "problem" and ensure that all americans' "right" to housing will be "fairly" distributed.
once the democrats, and thereafter the federal government, control health care's soon-to-be 20% of the nation's gdp, they will control a plurality of the gdp. they will then turn that plurality into a majority. our controlled economy will finish off the market economy--except in the black markets that inevitably will arise--but whose entrepreneurs will be labeled criminals and jailed for crimes against the state.
keevan d. morgan, chicago
estcruzer
Health Care Reform has to win. If you think Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are a fiscal problem Health care will dwarf them if it is left in private hands without any regulation - just look at the financial industry, another great Republican experiment in deregulation and privatization, that FAILED GROSSLY.
URDRWHO
estcruzer maybe you had not noticed but the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law during the Clinton administration. But from the posts I read from you, I'm guessing you were in elementary school during the clinton years. You sound very young and gullible.
"Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month."
JohnLeeHooker
Einstein: SS, Medicare, Medicare ARE regulated by the govt. the INS co's ARE regulated by the govt. The financial industry IS regulated by the GOVT. Geithner, for example, was in the NY Fed REGULATING the financial industry. See a pattern here? BTW, this is NOT about health care. If it were, the GOVT would leave the 80% alone and deal w/ the 30%. This IS about BIG govt and GOVT control - see Independent Payment Advisory Board, QALY, etc if you don't think so. Geez, just when you think it can't get worse, there you are.
wareagle82
Obama lives up, not just to the stereotype of the far-left ideologue, but the caricature of one. His "govt over all" approach simply does not resonate with the bulk of the American public and the fact is, such a philosophy never has. There is a difference between govt taking action to oversee things and govt taking action to flat out run them, and health care is an example.
No one disputes that the system could use some work. But only committed ideologues believe that govt is the institution that should be in charge, mostly because only ideologues believe govt has a good track record in managing large programs. The health care initiatives already under federal control are awash in red ink; how does broadening that scope give anyone comfort?
estcruzer
Sorry, Wareagle, you are misleading yourself and anyone who believe the conjecture of your first paragraph. Show me where he has proven himself to be a committed idealogue and not a pragmatic politician able to read the majority much better than either you or the Republicans.
Keep in mind that the health care industry is awash in red blood of those that can't afford their exhorbitant insurance premiums or hospital bills, my personal experience is premiums of $1000/month for a family of 2, or $100,000 for a 10 day stay to clean up a case of Pneumonia - bankruptcy in either case.
Anything that starts the reform of that industry can only help avert a major disaster that is about to overtake this country if health care is allowed to continue as it has (insurance rates jump 30% - thats a raise from $1000/month to $1300/month - currently 1/2 my salary).
wareagle82
Pragmatic is what Bill Clinton did after the '94 vote; he took a hard look at reality, accepted it, and went on a new path. Prragmatic is what Reagan did in sitting with Tip O'Neill and both men making compromises to get things done. Obama does not brook such modesty; he firmly believes he is right regardless of public opinion which clearly, repeatedly, and loudly has said it does not want DC to takeover health care, believes that such action will increase costs, AND that it will kill jobs, too. That makes him an ideologue.
I agree with you that reform is necessary; no one posting here disputes that. However, I do not believe the federal govt can efficiently run such an enterprise as it has proven itself incapable of such time and again, regardless of which party was in power. Govt simply is not built or designed to manage programs based on income vs. expenses, and health care IS a business. If you don't think it is, then what will you cut to make up for the sure-to-come cost overruns that are endemic in govt-run enterprises?
URDRWHO
You (as an individual) are not paying $1,000 a month for insurance. I doubt if even in New York City would it cost $1,000 a month for an individual. Plus the 30% figure that all you propagandist, mouth organs talk of is one company, in one State and only for certain zip codes.
IMO that the CEO of the above Blues company should step down for stupidity. Now if indeed costs (which is what the Feds should be addressing) went up 30%, I guess to stay solvent so they can pay the Bill a 30% increase is needed. Unlike the Fed. Government, private companies can't print money.
pacifistgunslinger
URDRWHO:
I pay $721.02/month for single coverage, no family, with absolutely stink coverage, hugh deductibles, bad drug plan. This is the problem Dems are trying to address if the Retardlicans would stop obstructing progress.
RogueBeast
pacifist is that whine supposed to be relevant to this debate? Your cost is based on what? Do you smoke, drink, have TB, consort with prostitutes, live in NY city?
Are you going to be pleased when you get the exact coverage as the wine-o in LA and wait in line behind the "newly insured"?
jobert
My 64 year old mother pays $1,300 in premiums per month with a $10,000 deductible. It is catastrophic coverage only. It's an individual plan. She lives in Indianapolis.
I am 31, female, and I have an individual plan. I live in Chicago. When I signed up in early 2006, it was $150 per month for the premium, with a $500 deductible. It is now $364 per month with $500 deductible, and I am perfectly healthy. It does not include maternity benefits, mental health benefits, or many of the other perks that come with a group plan.
@Roguebeast, I can easily see pacifistgunslinger having a premium that high.
I think most of the people who defend their current health insurance have not had to use it, or are covered by gold-plated group plans, and don't have a clue how much the rest of us are risking with individual plans.
And it's the individual plans that will be changed the most by health reform. Thank God for that.
And I agree with all of estcruzer's posts on this blog for this article.
JohnConnughton
Interesting argument, wareagle82. But if the question is government or who else, you have to ask who else. A for-profit alternative is by definition only in it for the money, and that does not speak to healthcare as a primary concern so where is the quality? A non-profit other than government?-what's the point?
Government does have an interest in healthcare. The nations health directly affects productivity and thus strength, and it affects tax revenues if nothing else. And then there is that which is beyond economics:"...to promote the general welfare...." Whatever that means, health is easily a part of it.
So I guess I'm something of an ideologue. But you are wrong to suppose what I think about government efficiency. I could probably make some improvements on that myself (at least, I have an MBA, so maybe!) but that isn't really the point. My point is, I'd rather muddle along trying than do nothing for fear of not being perfectly efficient.
dalelama
Your argument reflects a lack of understanding of the free market. Without excessive government interference such as Medicare, Medicaid, mandated benefits, special tax treatment for employer health insurance, anti trust exemptions, and onerous approval hurdles the for-profit model would deliver even better quality as suplliers would improve their products to gain market share just as they have with computers, cell phones, and televisions.
Even if I grant you the argument government can play a more useful role I believe it should be done at the state level where you could have 50 different experiments run at once, allow People the freedom to live under the model they desire, not usurp the Constitution, and not jeopardize the nationwide economy.
RogueBeast
John, BlueCrossBlueShield is a non profit.
Blaming insurance companies for rising HC costs is an intentional diversion to create a bogey man for all to hate.
The Fed govt created millions of patients with Medicare. Then the Fed govt dictated how much they would pay the doctor and hospitals. That is the Genesis of the HC debacle. Everyone knows that including you and Obama.
JohnConnughton
Hello dalelama. First, I spent 8 years setting prices for a major healthcare insurer, and my MBA is in healthcare, so please don't condescend to me about healthcare and free markets. Second, HIPPA was passed in 1996 and 14 years later about 10% of insurers have managed to get into compliance, so don't tout their genius. The reason they aren't in compliance is everybody thinks their own solution that they've invested in already is better than everyone else's (and for them it is since it's done), but the whole idea was PORTABILITY between carriers, so they are all failures. Third, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, because benefit plans are services not hardware, and I'll let you imagine what that difference entails in both development and practice. As to your argument that the states should do it their 50 separate ways, well, they already are, and we already know some of what works and some of what doesn't. The choice now is, why don't they all implement the same best practices? And one answer is, they can't all afford the same investment. So should not the federal government, created by the states to-for one thing-promote the general welfare, try to establish a floor at least in how its citizens are cared for?
RogueBeast:
Yes I know BC/BS is a non-profit. And large as they are, and actually somewhat consistent, if they were the answer they'd already own the market, wouldn't they?
Per above, since I set group health insurance plan prices for a while, I know very well why inflation in healthcare is far higher than most other things. It is high education, high R&D, very precise and complicated equipment with-in theory-no margin for error; it is nothing less than cutting edge in social evolution. Everything that drives it is expensive.
RogueBeast, I do not know how you figure the Feds 'created millions of patients.' Do you mean it gave aging people an alternative to just going belly-up? Oh, what a waste of resources! You twerp.
RogueBeast
Actually John I was referring to the fact that Medicare refuses to pay the "going rate" for healthcare, so those lost fees are passed along to the rest of us with private insurance. So when Dr. Obama starts dictating fees for ALL of us, things will be better?
BCBS does have competition and the states dictate what they must offer.
I'm in my 7th year in the local junior college so I'm not nearly as smart as you, but typically liberal, you gotta throw a name in there, don't you twerp?
dalelama
@JohnConnughton, you need to read the Constitution as the power to provide health care is not a power enumerated to the Federal government and is therefore the province of the states. If you believe it should be then pass a Constitutional amendment. Why can't you just leave us alone and let us take care of our health care and families in the manner we see fit.
While I may not have a MBA in health care I have lived in the UK and seen the debacle of socialized medicine. Poor quality, lack of innovation, squalid hospital condition, extreme waiting periods for life saving treatments, and the politicalization of health care delivery. Everyone who wants to socialize medicine should live in the UK for one year to appreciate how poorly government is at allocating resouces effectively. Also please don't tell me that MRI machines, coated stents, dialysis machines, and defibulators aren't hardware.
JohnConnughton
Hello Rogue.
Thank you for the clarification about Medicare 'going rates.' That makes sense. And it sounds much nicer than leaving the elderly with no health care, so I will retract my calling you a twerp for that, if you don't mind. You may earn it again later, or call me that again later, as subjects evolve.
Actually the state insurance commissioners have whole volumes of regulatory law if you want to do business in their state, for BC/BS and its competitors. But those are minimums, and of couse they compete by seeing what else they can provide for the lowest price-faster service for example.
Good luck at school and beyond.
JohnConnughton
Hello again dalelama.
It will be nice when we get past the pissing contest, won't it? You question my understanding of basics so that I am obligated to defend my qualifications-may I suggest attacking a position as illogical instead of assuming things about the writer. I am glad you got a chance to live in the UK, my stop there was too brief. But I lived in South Africa a while, long enough to use their socialized medicine for a sports injury, and found it a very good deal. So we cancel out on our socialized experiences.
As to the Constitution, here again you go make uneducated assumprtions about people. The Constitution is one of those things I have memorized, as being worth the effort; and I find I keep quoting the Preamble (as in my original post here) about the general welfare. You say the states did not give any such power to the feds, but the states ratified the fed Constitution listing that as a reason they did so. What, responsibility without resources? We could argue what does it mean (lots of different things occur to me), but don't tell me you better understand my country's Constitution. In turn I am not claiming absolute knowledge either. All I know for sure is they put it there and it must mean something to do with government having an interest in the well-being of its citizens. (WHy would a STATE have that interest but not a FED? Why think small any more than why think large?)
Your point is taken about medical hardware. The essential difference now is that when you buy a PC or TV it is yours and you turn all the dials. Generally speaking nobody is going to let you even touch their medical equipment, so it only comes to you the patient via their services. In fact this makes my point precisely, as technicians are highly educated and their time costs a lot.
jernigc
Mr. Connughton, you may have read the Constitution but you apparently don't understand what the "general welfare" clause means. Try reading the Federalist Papers and other supporting documents before touting your knowledge in the future. The general welfare clause does not relate to things that benefit a citizen personally, such as providing health care, rather it speaks to providing governmental support to issues that benefit the American society collectively. Health care, while a humane undertaking, doesn't pass muster.
Oddly enough the "commerce clause" would be applicable in this case and isn't used. The State insurance Commissioners are an anachronism and should go away. Insurance is simply a produce like any other that should be available anywhere in the country. Its value offering--what's covered--should be the preview of the company to design and the customer should be free to choose whatever product he desires. Once chosen the customer, actually the patient if the policy is exercised, should only receive the service he/she contracted for.
I also have an MBA, which I suspect I receive way before you got your's since I received it in 1980 well before such degrees were popular and fine your description of the situation lacking. To begin with, you worked in, and possible still do in an industry that was not a part of the free market system. In fact, the health care insurance industry, because of government regulation, enjoys some of the more onerous features of monopolies and/or oligopies. This status was/is the direct result of government in health care insurance and comes for a progressive notion that the government knows better than the citizen does what is needed and who should provide it.
A free market solution that offers a full range of insurance options to the customer coupled with the ability for the taxpayer to create unlimited health savings accounts to cover routine medical cost would lower the cost of both insurance coverage and medical cost themselves. Nothing about what is currently beginning pushed by this administration or congress will improve health care in this country.
amapola101
How are individual insurance payers or small buss benefitting.?Will their insurance drop.??3 more years, until this kicks in?Please someone answer this question. The president said, those paying for an a ppale, will pay an extra 13% to 18% and get an orange.the person does not want a new fruit, a new expense, they want a cheaper,fruit. the same apple, at a less price,more competitive. At 3 years from now you will have a new group that will not be able to pay insurance.Someone explain. How this benefits all. ??Small companies, small businesess that are dying, how is this working.?
lordmi
Good vision.
Dems need to learn, how to talk to people, they are trying to protect.
Hypocrites from GOP , well trained in telling false tales and fooling people, they still can do it better ; their uneducated base still ready to be fooled again and again, fighting for the interests of rich , who would rob them again.
Dems just do not pay much attention, how to talk to people.
That's why they lost healthcare support.
Time to learn , guys.
Time to be able to talk to Your people, to assure them, to lead.
Volunteer
Expressing contempt for everyone who disagrees with you (i.e., Republicans are either lying hypocrites or uneducated dupes) is probably not a good example of how to talk to people.
RogueBeast
What a con lordmi. It is the Dems that depend on their base being uneducated. Educated Americans know that nothing is "Free".
Was it the uneducated Republican base claiming they wanted some "Obama stash" and house payments, car payments, free gas and maybe a new kitchen?
The Dems should apologize for the lies used to coerce a vote.
This user is no longer registered.
JohnR22
So instead of choosing Morris' triangulation, Obama has opted for Rove's focus on energizing the Base. Hmmmm....seems to me that Clinton had great success with triangulation. We got a lot of good legislation passed that had broad partisan (i.e. voter) support and Clinton won a landslide reelection. And how about Rove's strategy? Did that work out for Bush? I think not...Bush was the most ideologically extremem, partisan, and hated Pres in quite a while. How droll that Obama chooses the Rove strategy.
platypus_chutney
"Prominent Republicans have already announced that if Democrats try to pass health care via reconciliation, they will not work across the aisle to pass anything major this year."
Obama decided to push for the full bill precisely because he's calling their bluff. He and all the other Democrats have realized that Republicans won't be working across the aisle for anything, ever, no matter how Obama tries to appease them or compromise.
To the extent Republicans even give lip service to compromise, they're simply faking it to look reasonable. There is no good faith willingness to compromise on anything. When they votes have come down in the end, no compromises have gained a single Republican vote yet. Why bother, then? Republicans have written themselves out of the process completely, and we're going to get legislation that is more liberal because of it. Good.
SmartyPants
I'm telling you, it really is all about the message. If Americans could just get real reporting in the corporate owned mainstream media their opinions would be much different. But when you get a constant chatter of lunatics from the right being given serious consideration you end up with a nation of dumbed down dingalings who tune out and prefer video games and movies to anything real. Meanwhile their country is falling apart around them and that creates anger. And when you get anger that is fueled by right wing demagogues the next step is fascism. I'd like to think Americans are smarter than that but I'm beginning to have my doubts.
Volunteer
Right wing "demagogues" (Fox News, Rush, and a handful of other talk radio people -- and that's about all) are only popular because they offer an alternative to the consensus center-left to slightly-further-left views of the mainstream media. And as for anger, it's hard to match the bitterness and hatred that the left has for anyone right of center.
AlanD2
Volunteer, most of the anger, bitterness, and hatred is on the right. Have you seen anything similar to teabaggers on the left recently? I haven't.
Conservatives: Living in a Fact-Free Zone.
superdad
AlanD2, You mean like when the SEIU guys beat up the black Tea Party guy activist for no reason except radical intimidation!
RogueBeast
Alan, you really are full of crap with your "facts".
Have any SEIU thugs beat anybody up today? Has ACORN rented any buses today to drive into the neighborhoods of people they want to protest?
Liberals: Lying and Bribing and whatever else it takes.
yourmama
volunteer-you are so right.
dana64
GOSH you are so wrong Volunteer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the RAGE that the RIGHT feels is so OBVIOUS.
The right is totally BLINDED by their hatred..............it was OBVIOUS as soon as PALIN came on stage in Sep 2008 >>>>>sign of the rage when you MOCK and LIE to make a point.
AlanD2 you are correct.
sameryline
Hey SmartyPants; only someone as far left as you could possibly view the media as right wing. Anything is right of you. Only a fool thinks that their view can possilby be the only intelligent one. What you don't get is that intelligent people with the same information can disagree on how to solve a problem and what the role of government should be. As long as you continue to dilute yourself into thinking that all intelligent and informed people will agree with you, you will never get it. That is what is so offensive about your comments and those of left liberals such as yourself. You all think that if we don't agree with you we are either stupid or misinformed. Most of us are neither. We are educated, intelligent and informed. But we just don't agree with your ideology, views or values. Intelligent minds can differ. If you continue to mock that reality, you will be left forever scratching your head.
amanda07070
"dilute"?
wareagle82
seriously, stop. I've been a member of the media, of which you clearly know zero. There is no set of marching orders emanating from corporate masters; there is, however, an ideological mindset that is pervasive in the typical newsroom and it tilts left. That is the reality of it; corporate-owned does not mean corporate-operated, except for the part about making money.
possumdearie
Besides Journolist, Americans also learned this year about another big echo chamber (we call it the sinestrosphere) that is daily morning phone calls from the White House to the editors of various news outlets.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18011.html
"Carville calls White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Emanuel calls ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos.
A bit later, CNN commentator Paul Begala, who is not quite the early bird that his friends are, will complete the circle with a rapid set of calls to all three... "
jobert
In what capacity did you work? If you were an editor, I might trust your opinion. Otherwise, I think it is pretty obvious that the media will not do something that works against the interests of its sponsors. (i.e., corporations)
possumdearie....sigh...wow.
wikwox
The fact is the old ways did not work. Playing nice, trying to bridge the divide let Republicans call the shots and they did without mercy. Time to fight relentlessly and give them as they give us. I will never forgive the Bush years or the current Obstructionism of the Republicans, they are the enemy.
mlebauer
Superjumbo dems, must be that same wistfulness that Tom Friedman has for the Chinese system. Just wish away democracy and get it done, 'cause we KNOW it's good for you.
Sure hope the Reps have the expected resurgence in Nov 2010, and the backbone to repeal this government takeover. It's a political artifact, an accident of the voters' failure to realize the repercussions of putting Dems in control. The system is self-correcting, but not before lots of damage is done.
AlanD2
You're right about one thing, mlebauer. The system is self-correcting, but not before lots of damage is done.
That's why Obama was elected, to correct the damage of the Bush administration.
Getting health care reform passed is part of fixing the damage.
dalelama
The problem the "superjumbo" Democrats face is the ideology they have embraced, far left Socialism, has always failed because the "elites" in charge are never as bright as they or their disciples believe. Adherents of this socio-political theory of governance whether they be Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or Obama have to rely on deceit or the barrel of a gun to gain and retain power as their ideas are stale and based on government control and the absence of individual liberty. Their constant attempts to degrade the individual remind me of the futility of the knight in a Monty Python movie who persists in a doomed effort to prevent progress even after all four limbs have been chopped off. New name, same game---steal from the productive to buy the votes of those who erroneously believe the false promises of the Socialist utopia.
JohnConnughton
You are full of bologna. And not very clever. Your use of a Monty Python knight trying to prevent progress, as a defense of what would appear to be conservatism, realy makes no sense. Are you sure he was fighting to prevent progress?
dalelama
He was trying to prevent the progress of knights to their destination.
barrylane
I'm sorry, I know you're confused about what it is that makes a socialist, but you believe Hitler was a socialist? The party was called National Socialist but the politics were those of fascism, as in fundamentalist right wing with a spot of psychopath and extra madness thrown in for good measure.
Obama is socially aware, yes, but to call him a socialist belies a failure to grasp precisely what socialism is.
Aslanleon
Fundamentalist? Hitler hated Christianity almost as much as he hated Judaism. He was a New Age type animal rights activist. His government controlled prices and wages, reduced competition, heavily regulated banks and used them as slush funds, and generally behaved like socialists. They didn't nationalize businesses-- they merely controlled them completely.
dalelama
Fascism and Communism are just two strands of Socialism...government command and control of the economy...the only difference is in communism party officials actually run the industrial operations while in fascim party officals tell corporations what to do...Socialism is just a step in the road to both that allows democracy to placate those in oposition who believe in personal liberty. How can you say Obama is not a Socialist. According to Webster Socialism is: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. During his first year he has increased government ownership of GM, Chrysler, Citibank, and AIG, attempted to seize control of the health care system, working on seizing control of energy production through cap and tax, and working feverishly to increase federal taxes. According to Mr. Webster he is the poster boy for Socialism. It seems my grasp of Socialism is much stronger than ours or you are just practicing the deception that is so typical of the Left in attempting to fool the American People.
gmonsen
Barrylane... If government controlling a good deal of the economy and education and society is socialism, Obama is a socialist. Perhaps a totalitarian socialist, but a socialist nonetheless.
When someone compares Obama's programs to facism, there really are some valid comparisons. Certainly, early facism was meant to be a government that would benefit the working class people at the expense of the bourgeoisie and aimed at the same ills as the communists at the same time. Both were promoted as an alternative to the German version of democracy that failed so miserably. Obama is all about redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor and providing government solutions for everything in our citizens lives. In Obama's world the government should control everything. It should provide health care, own car companies, control or own financial institutions, and on and on. And, at the top of this government sits Obama as its leader and master. So, its no stretch to compare Obama with Nazism or Communism as practiced by Hotler and Stalin. Nazism and Communism were very similar systems in practice, though theoreticians might place Nazism on the right and Communism on the left...
CharlieT
"Precisely" what socialism is? If you have a precise definition of a political current that has appeared in as many different forms as it has places and that, as part of its doctrine, has suggested all manner of disguise, stealth and compromise, then you've really got something I'd like to see. All I know is, my friends who call themselves socialists or progressives are on the whole happy with Mr Obama. My other friends? Not so much.
PS: I think you mean "denotes" rather than "belies."
barrylane
CharlieT: I meant "belies", but as in "your calling him a socialist belies..." etc.
Socialism: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." Now where in hell have I heard that before?
AlanD2
Aslanleon: In 1941, according to the diary of Nazi General Gerhart Engel, Hitler stated "But I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Not exactly the words of a man who "hated Christianity".
Aslanleon
Alan2D- Hitler made many statements in private about how much he hated Christianity. When he spoke publicly, he concealed his true beliefs. He never attended church, for example, and Germania, the new city to be built on the site of Berlin contained no churches. He publicly stated how much he was in favor of peace and freedom, yet these statements are not quoted to support his yearning for these admirable conditions. To put it to you gently, Hitler lied.
possumdearie
Here's an example of socialism vs. democracy in your quaint analysis. In a democracy, voters elect a representative. That person then goes to DC and respects the wishes of their constituents assuming they want to keep their job.
This is what is going on with this healthcare bill. Voters are furious and in the streets with signs and bullhorns (not pitchforks and ropes... yet.) Obama and Pelosi are prepared to violate Article 1 Section 7 of our Constitution and just call a "rule change) that says a bill doesn't have to come up for a vote in the Senate, even if it is completely different. The language is clear here. It is spelled out clearly in the Constitution.
That is not socialism. It is fascism, the likes of what you'd see in Venezuela.
dana64
President OBAMA has only been a little center left ONLY on this Health care, and even as i write this I am making fun of myself..............because had he included a MEdicare type plan......he might be a bit center left.
EVERYTHING else so far has been center RIGHT..........
so You certainly have NO CREDIBILITY at ALL when you say he has been FAR LEFT.
HISTORY will prove you are a LIAR
thibaud
A very astute analysis, but missing the point about Obama's botched healthcare bill: most Americans want to achieve two things, only one of which this abortion of a bill comes even close to achieving. Reduce costs, and prevent people from losing all if they lose their jobs and fall ill. TweedleDum doesn't care about the latter and TweedleDee doesn't give a f*** about the former. That's the problem
Aslanleon
Beinart's excellent article worried me. What if leftist Democrats read it and realized what they had done wrong and what they continue to do wrong? What if they faced the political reality in America, which is that this is a center-right country? To my great relief, nobody here is paying attention to the article and disagrees with it. They think that the media are conservative. They think Obama is too conservative. They believe that Republicans are uneducated and stupid. "It's Bush's fault," is heard once again as a a substitute for actually doing something.
Thank you TDB posters for confirming for me once again that some people will never learn. When Republicans win, it will be because Dems believe Americans want leftist solutions to their problems. "Now it's up to the bear."
wareagle82
you are expecting the impossible. The left is NOT going to realize what it has done wrong. In fact, you have seen how much of the left has reacted already - by claiming Obama is not one of them and/or that people really do want a govt-run health care system. The closest anyone on the left came to taking stock was Clinton after '94; he regrouped, worked with teh GOP, and won re-election.
AlanD2
An interesting compendium of Fox News propaganda, Aslanleon.
What these DB threads show me is that you conservative posters will never give up your beliefs, even in the face of contrary facts.
barrylane
AlanD2: Their dogma is all that matters to them, it seems. You are absolutely right.
jobert
I agree, AlanD2 and barrylane.
I have searched around conservative outlets like the Wall Street Journal, National Review and the Economist looking to be proven wrong. I don't want to be played a fool, you know? But I cannot find any alternatives promoted by conservatives that make sense and are practical.
I grew up in a conservative family. I know the arguments, and I love people who believe those arguments. I just find lots of holes in them.
Aslanleon
What the beast has taught me is that leftists almost never post anything to refute what a conservative says. Fact: Americans say they are 40% conservative and around 20% liberal. Fact: the media lean heavily towards liberal, except for Fox and talk radio. Fact: Obama is not a conservative. Fact: Republicans are as educated and intelligent as Democrats. All these are not my opinion, but are supported by multiple polls and studies. If you can refute them using anything except leftist blogs, please do so and we can discuss it. Otherwise, why do you bother to post?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.