About Last Night

Stop calling them moderates!
People who insist that there’s something noble about having no core values whatsoever are just as extremist as any teabagger or DFH!
Iraq ’03 already proved – sometimes large majorities of Americans are flat out and tragically WRONG!!!!!

The fact that the Democratic base isn’t energized ought to be something for the party to ponder as well, given that Obama moved to the center as soon as he took office. However, I’m sure the MSM will continue to insist that he isn’t a moderate enough centrist, an ideology that doesn’t even exist.

SZ is going to have a seizure when he wakes

Though, in her defense, KT hasn’t quite gone this far … yet

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/12646

“Corzine’s downfall has been festering – independent of national trends – for the past 18 months; his approval rating began to tank in 2008 ? in the middle of a historically successful year for national Democrats.
…Corzine’s unpopularity going into Tuesday’s election cannot be underestimated. The target of blame for the state’s financial problems and high property taxes, Corzine’s approval rating has consistently been in the high 30s to low 40s ? since mid-2008.

And not one poll during the gubernatorial race this year showed Corzine with more than 43 percent support.

Simply put, New Jersey voters have been looking at other options for a while.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5517318.shtml

I’m not certain that your thesis holds KT. Unless you (media) expect BHO to raise the dead.

The lesson from last night is that the Teabaggers have tasted blood and will be a bigger force in the republican party next year in primary challenges.

Florida ought to be fun.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: You have your facts straight, Karen, but you’re drawing the wrong conclusion.
.
Given your observation that, “…both Corzine and Deeds stumbled on their own weaknesses,” I do not understand how you can conclude that these were Obama’s failures. Just how much lipstick can Obama apply? (Especially in governors’ races, which are inherently more local affairs?
.
Lastly, why does being “more attuned to the political rhythms of their home states” equate to being “less willing to take risks?” If the polling about the popularity of the Public Option is any indication, it appears as though the US electorate is ready to reward congress for stepping up and taking bold action.

P.S. When the High Sheriffs blink their eyes and wonder why they can see their shadows at 7AM these days, could you point out to them that we’ve gone back to standard time and that the timestamps on our comments are still in Daylight Saving Time?.
.
Thank you, Karen.

Kbang: I’m thinking about people like Blanche Lincoln, who is running for re-election in a state that John McCain carried last year by something like 20 percentage points. I doubt that the national popularity of the public option will figure much in her decision. And it doesn’t look like hitching her star to Obama’s can do much to help her — as Corzine learned — if she is out of step with what her constituents want.

This initiative received 80,000 NYC signatures and still it was kept off the ballot:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/make-it-happen-on-purpose/

How would New Yorkers have answered that question?

It seems that the emperor has no clothes.

Since his election Obama has alienated our allies in England, France, Germany, and Israel, caved in to the Russians, believed the lies of the Iranians, apologized to the Moslem world for American behaviour (and no apologies were warranted because it is America that ended the famine in Moslem Somalia, freed Moslem Kuwait from Iraq’s take over, ended the genocide of Moslems in Kosovo by Serbia, and freed fifty million Moslems in Iraq and Afghanistan from brutal, oppressive governments) and embraced Venezuela and Cuba, two countries that oppress their people. He’s about to let the Taliban and Al Queda take over Afghanistan once again.

I guess this is what he meant by change you can believe in. I’m a Democrat who enthusiastically voted for Christie in New Jersey and will vote Republican for Senator and my liberal Democrat friends are finally beginning to see the light and plan to do so as well.

Shorter KT: “If only Dems would drop the PO, Corzine would have won”

Major problem with KT’s thesis? That supporting Health Reform is being “more attuned to the political rhythms” of New Jersey voters.

I agree with the above posters that it is absurd to draw much of a link between the popularity of D.C. Dem policies and gubernatorial races. To the extent that such a link can be drawn, my best guess is that Obama’s failure to hold the banksters accountable probably doesn’t help any former Goldman execs running for office.

As for Hoffman-Owens, a clear lesson to me is that the predictable mid-term drop in Dem/Obama popularity may well be offset by the continued implosion of the GOP. If, next year, the GOP nominates a bunch of wingnuts without any understanding of local issues, the Dems may minimize their otherwise to be expected losses.

and no apologies were warranted
Because, after all, Abu Ghraib was all in a day’s work….

I’m a Democrat
.
Sure you are.
.
You’re entitled to your views. If you want to vote for a Republican governor in New Jersey because you don’t like Obama’ s foreign policy positions, knock yourself out.
.
Just don’t expect us to believe that you are or have recently been anything other than a reliable GOP voter.

“Democrats more attuned to the political rhythms of their home states, and less willing to take risks.”
.
KT-I think you need to define “taking risks.” Because what you wrote above can be taken in more than one way. For example, if I’m a democrat in and my home state is over whelming in favor of the public option and I want a trigger am I taking a risk going for the trigger? Or am I taking a risk going for the public option? I just want to be clear what you are getting at before I respond further.
.
Thanks KT.

Congratulations are in order for the winners. Despite the loss in NY23, the people have spoken. What they have said is….
.
“This is NOT the change we can believe in, no go back and re-look at it again”.
.
Blue dog Dems are in very deep trouble to secure re-election, especially in predominantly Red States or districts which trend conservative.
.
Liberalism in America only comprises 20%, while more moderate and conservative mindsets make up the difference.
.
People who vote have said “it is the economy and jobs, stupid”. Any blue dog who runs on healthcare in 2010, and we pretty much know that health care legislation is now dead as it is currently proposed, will be defeated in their attempts to be re-elected.
.
The candidate who focuses on economic issues, small government or limited government involvement, repeal of taxes of any kind (including hidden taxes such as cap and trade), and creation of jobs will win.
.
Last nights voters clearly rejected the social agenda of the Democrats. That is why you saw that Obama played little or no part in those elections.
.
While I will also warn any Republican / Conservative. Simply invoking Reagan’s ghost as your political platform will not gain you the votes needed. Speaking directly to the voter, and having a plan to solve their individual economic problems will win.
.
Clearly the soclialist plans that Obama and the rest of the far left extreme are dead. Now maybe Obama will focus on more important things, and stop his march towards China II.

KT:
.

…efforts to bring moderates…

“Moderate” what?

The take away from last night …

1. Sarah Palin is the gift that keeps on giving.

2. Blue Dogs are an endangered species.

3. With “[a] solid majority (56%) of the people of Arkansas in favor of the public option (and only 37% opposed), Blanche Lincoln can only wish she was as popular.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/30/blanche-lincoln-should-wish-she-were-as-popular-as-the-public-option-in-arkansas/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/poll-arkansas-voters-disagree-with-lincolns-public-option-skepticism.php

“I’m thinking about people like Blanche Lincoln, who is running for re-election in a state that John McCain carried last year by something like 20 percentage points. I doubt that the national popularity of the public option will figure much in her decision.”
.
KT-Does this not directly contridict your previous post then, because if Lincoln needs to be more attune to her home state this is what her state thought of the public option on Sept 14th.
.

One day after releasing a Research 2000 survey of Indiana residents — in a study designed to get the attention of Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh — the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America is going public with the results from Arkansas, home state of Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
.
The findings are equally persuasive. From the PCCC:
.
PUBLIC OPTION: Arkansas voters favor a public option 56% to 37%. Independents favor it 57% to 32%. Democrats 83% to 12%.
2010 GENERAL ELECTION: If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 35% of Independents would be less likely to vote for her, 10% more likely. (Over 3 to 1). Among Democrats, 49% to 7% (7 to 1). Lincoln is only 2% ahead of Republican Gilbert Baker (41% to 39%), a net drop of 5% since last month’s Research 2000 poll.
.
2010 PRIMARY: 57% of Democrats say they are not sure if Lincoln should be the Democratic nominee again, or want someone new. If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 48% of Democrats would be even less likely to support her in a primary.
.
The survey was compiled via interviews with 600 residents of Arkansas, which is a significant enough number to give the findings some weight. But the larger narrative is equally important. In state after state — including ones deemed to be political “toss-ups” — the public option polls extremely well. In Indiana, for instance, voters favored the plan for government-run insurance by a margin of 52% to 42%, and it jumped to 59% to 33% among Independents.
.
In short, the public may very well be ahead of their elected representatives on this topic. They’re certainly ahead of the media. Just last night, on MSNBC’S Hardball, the round-table discussion focused squarely on how tough it would be for these conservative Democrats to vote against the will of their constituents and SUPPORT a public option.
.
“It’s not a matter of scaring people,” analyst Michelle Bernard said of ads warning that Lincoln and others would lose their seats if they back a public plan. “It’s a matter of saying listen to your constituents.”
.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/yet-another-public-option_n_339709.html

“While I will also warn any Republican / Conservative”
.
That is exactly what I meant above.

The divide in what is left of the republican party could be Luther v. Rome sized.

Then Democrats would be very stupid.

Corzine was very unpopular. Deeds had been trailing for a long time, one reason being that he never sewed up the base.

2010 will be all about getting your base out. If Democrats don’t rouse up their base, they will lose.

One other lesson from last night. No Howard Dean running things for the Democrats.

Kaine failed to even make his home state close.

Karen: Thank you to replying to our comments.
.
re: PO and Blanche Lincoln. This poll by the Atlantic (link) shows that Senator Lincoln’s numbers go up if she supports the PO, and down if she supports a filibuster. There appears to be strong support for the PO in AK, McCain’s 20-pt margin notwithstanding (and probably attributable to more…regional…feelings about Obama.)
.
Re: “You’re on your own.” This phrase has a “throw ‘em under the bus” ring to it, which I don’t think reflects the situation on the ground…
.
IMHO (and to overwork a football metaphor): If you’re 1st and goal at the 8, Obama may be able help you get into the end zone. But, if you’re 3rd and 22 on your own 45, well, then you’re on your own…

Thanks for the comment mjkoch. Don’t mind the little liberals on this site, who are focused on their own selfish soclialist ideals.
.
You resonate the focus groups I watched last night and listened to their responses. Americans want to know that their leader is strong and will defend us from our sworn enemies.
.
Obama has clearly demonstrated that he does not have our best interests at heart. He does not have our military men and women’s lives as the most important part of his foreign policy agenda.
.
Obama clearly is for Obama and the far left of the Democrat Party. Hopefully he will now take a rest from being in front of the camera 24/7, and stop campaigning and go to work on the important problems facing America, not his pie in the sky neo-socialist new America.

The clearest message from NY-23 is that the GOP is doomed to continue to slide electorally, as long as the direction of the party is being driven by people with no incentive to…win elections.

Yes, Hoffman lost. But will Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck see their ratings slide? Will Palin’s influence wane for her participation? These people no financial incentive to help the GOP regain power. They will be paid — and paid handsomely — simply to whip the base into a frenzy. They couldn’t care less how small the GOP tent shrinks, as long as they remain the ringleaders.

gunny: jinx!

“One other lesson from last night. No Howard Dean running things for the Democrats.

Kaine failed to even make his home state close.”

.
…..and Obama, Emmanuel, Soros, SEIU, ACORN. MoveOn.Orgy…
.
How do you spell relief? R-E-J-E-C-T-I-O-N

KT:

I doubt that the national popularity of the public option will figure much in her decision.

Just so you are aware, the national popularity of the public option isn’t what’s being discussed in liberal quarters with respect to Blanche Lincoln (link):

Yet Another Public Option Poll Puts A Wavering Dem On The Spot
.
Sam Stein
.
First Posted: 10-30-09 08:47 AM | Updated: 10-30-09 09:39 AM
.
Yet another public opinion poll in a state with a conservative Democratic senator shows that the public option not only is widely popular among voters, but could become a potent issue in the upcoming congressional elections.

One day after releasing a Research 2000 survey of Indiana residents — in a study designed to get the attention of Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh — the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America is going public with the results from Arkansas, home state of Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

The findings are equally persuasive. From the PCCC:

PUBLIC OPTION: Arkansas voters favor a public option 56% to 37%. Independents favor it 57% to 32%. Democrats 83% to 12%.
.
2010 GENERAL ELECTION: If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 35% of Independents would be less likely to vote for her, 10% more likely. (Over 3 to 1). Among Democrats, 49% to 7% (7 to 1). Lincoln is only 2% ahead of Republican Gilbert Baker (41% to 39%), a net drop of 5% since last month’s Research 2000 poll.
.
2010 PRIMARY: 57% of Democrats say they are not sure if Lincoln should be the Democratic nominee again, or want someone new. If Lincoln joined Republicans in filibustering a public option, 48% of Democrats would be even less likely to support her in a primary.

In short, the public may very well be ahead of their elected representatives on this topic. They’re certainly ahead of the media. Just last night, on MSNBC’S Hardball, the round-table discussion focused squarely on how tough it would be for these conservative Democrats to vote against the will of their constituents and SUPPORT a public option.
.
“It’s not a matter of scaring people,” analyst Michelle Bernard said of ads warning that Lincoln and others would lose their seats if they back a public plan. “It’s a matter of saying listen to your constituents.”
.
“Blanche Lincoln, I think, is a wonderful person,” added host Chris Matthews. “She faces a very conservative… you talking about people, they voted for McCain overwhelmingly down there and probably would do it again.”
.
“Look she’s up for re-election, she’s got a touch race ahead of her and she’s one of the most vulnerable Democrats,” concluded Time Magazine’s Jay Newton Small.

You and your colleagues at Time might want to look at available polling data regarding Arkansas, KT, before you make assumptions about what local opinion is in DLC Dems’ districts.
.
If this isn’t a Village CW assumption on your part, would you please mind sharing the polling data that contradicts Sam Stein’s citation of the PCCC survey, KT?
.
Thanks in advance for helping us understand the disconnect between what the Village believes about what’s smart for Lincoln and other centrist, DLC, New Democrat Dems, and what the liberal blogosphere believes, KT.

Gunny:
.
Hey Quickdraw McGraw!
.
Man, I haven’t had my coffee yet.
.
I got beat to the punch!
.
Lesson:
.
Coffee first, post last.

I think this is the first ever triple jinx I have seen because Sy2d linked to the same poll further down the thread. Awesome

Kbang, Gunny, and Stuart have it right, KT. It seems like the story here is about why Blue Dogs are so anxious to vote against their constituents. And I think we all know what the answer is.

In your little dream world, square1. Let’s just say you are correct. The fact is that in NY23, Hoffman was a complete unknown until AFTER he gained national attention, and was endorsed by those you cite.
.
Truth be known, it was a surprisingly close race for someone that wasn’t even on the radar 2 weeks before the election. TWO WEEKS. That in politics is just a blink of the eye.
.
No, I want the Democrats controlled and represented by their far left liberal base to believe that the Republican Party is down and out. In most all situations when you are down, you only have one direction to go buddy boy. UP, UP and AWAY
.
In my own sleepy little district I have never seen people so energized to stop the liberal onslaught of Obama’s policies.
.
People want their leadership and representatives to be accountable to them, non-corrupt, throw out the special interest groups and lobbyist and start representing their interests for a change. A kind of change we can really believe in!!

Liberalism in America only comprises 20%, while more moderate and conservative mindsets make up the difference.
.
Unfortunately for the GOP, they keep undermining their own argument by insulting anyone who is more liberal than Rush Limbaugh. If conservatism amounts to a checklist of positions on various issues, and if you don’t hit all of them then you are a liberal, then the real message the GOP is sending is that most Americans are liberals and should vote for the opposition.
.
Did it ever occur to you that many of Scozzafava’s voters might support her views? That if a voter saw herself as pro-gun, but also pro-labor, she might want to vote Republican? That the strain of Republicanism in rural New York is very, very different from the strain in the rural South?
.
Hoffman’s message was: “Go away. Anyone who is pro-choice, pro-union, or pro-gay equality has no place in the party.”
.
I get that “social conservatives” wouldn’t like Scozzafava, but the time to get involved was before the GOP picked her.

Abu Ghraib, honestly, who cares? More of that self generated indignation.

Why do you assume that those who see value in some ideas on one side of the isle and some ideas on the other side of the isle as having “no core values?” It’s pretty self-important to consider those who don’t completely hue to your personal political beliefs as having “no core values.” Counterproductive and silly as well.

Karen you are verging off in your analysis. Healthcare reform and the public option is supported by the majority in Blanche Lincoln’s home state. The lesson of this off year election is that the change mantra is still in effect and geared towards incumbents. Populism is going on strong against those politicans seen as still beholden to special interests (Wall Street- fat cats). Even Bloomberg had a squeaker but his money saved him. I believe anyone politicans at the helm in 2008 has to worry. Are you looking out for the people or your donors?

The tea baggers and Palin/Beck crowd lost big time. This was a district made for them. The two new Rethug governors won because they act like moderates and stayed far away from the Palin crowd.

Politicans better start giving the people what they want (healthcare reform and jobs) or they are going to be joining the unemployement line.

In my own sleepy little district I have never seen people so energized to stop the liberal onslaught of Obama’s policies.
.
Ha! How is electing a Democrat to NY-23 going to stop Obama’s policies? That is my point. The wingnut fringe cares more about ideological purity than electoral success.

The rational, conservative GOP analysis should have been the following:

I don’t like Scozzafava but she will have no seniority in Congress and can be controlled by leadership for a year. Next year, we can primary her and push for a more conservative Republican. But it is stupid to risk handing the district to the Dems just so that we can have an ideological purist as Congressman for one year.

That is how winning political parties think.

“Congratulations are in order for the winners. Despite the loss in NY23, the people have spoken. What they have said is….”

This statement makes no sense — so the people only speak when a Republican wins? Wow.

There is a lesson for Obama to learn from NJ, and it’s this: When your predecessor bankrupts the state, and you get elected to fix things, voters aren’t going to like what you have to do to clean up his/her mess.

It’s a common pattern: a Republican gets elected by lying about taxes and lying about fiscal responsibility, and a Democrat takes the blame for making the hard choices necessary to keep the state afloat.

Derek:

…centrist, an ideology that doesn’t even exist.

It does. The press corps largely keeps things simple and “left-right” for us idiots, but this political ideology is real, and represented in congress by a political caucus named “New Democrats” and in lobbying by an organization named “The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)”.
.
Go to wikipedia, and search for “Third Way” or “Radical Center”, and you’ll see what they believe in, and why it makes sense for them to oppose us some of the time, and the rightists some of the time.
.
If you’d like, just read my reply to Elvis Elvisberg on this subject here:
…START REPRINT…
Elvis (link):

If only centrism were an ideology, Stuart! Then it would have a consistent set of principles with which one could agree or disagree.

But it really is an ideology http://tinyurl.com/5ac7rb , and these really are its principles:

Third Way (centrism)
.
The Third Way is a term that has been used to describe a political position which attempts to transcend left-wing and right-wing politics by advocating a mix of some left-wing and right-wing policies.[1] Third Way approaches are commonly viewed as representing a centrist compromise between capitalism and socialism, or between market liberalism and democratic socialism. However, proponents of third way philosophies often claim that the third way represents a synthesis of these competing viewpoints, distinct from and superior to both of its sources, rather than simply a compromise or mixture.[2] This claim is embodied in the alternative description of the Third Way as the Radical center.

The cooperation you are witnessing between the Democratic Congressional leadership and “stakeholders”, i.e. proposed industry beneficiaries of state largess. is truly a principled, Third Way position!
.
These are its believers:

In the United States, Third Way adherents reject fiscal conservatism, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the Administration of President Bill Clinton.[32]
.
After Tony Blair came to power in the UK, Clinton, Blair and other leading Third Way adherents organized conferences to promote the Third Way philosophy in 1997 at Chequers in England.[33][34] The Democratic Leadership Council are adherents of Third Way politics.[35]
.
In 2004, several veteran U.S. Democrats founded a new Washington, DC organization entitled Third Way, which bills itself as a “strategy center for progressives.”[36]
.
Current President Barack Obama has been described as a Third Way politician by Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria.[37] United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considered by some to be third way politician as well.

They really, honestly subscribe to this political philosophy, Elvis.
.
They aren’t “centrists”, they are centrists –really and truly Third Way advocates.
.
These people took over the Democratic Party in the 1990s, and they are still in power today http://tinyurl.com/q3v9p:

The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation [3] that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. The DLC hails President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story.
.
The DLC’s affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC’s philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. Note that this term is also used by other groups, who have similar views on where the party should go in the future like NDN[1] and Third Way[2].
.
The DLC’s current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Bruce Reed.
.
It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984.
.
The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean’s anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the “loony left” [9]. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President’s achievements and cautioned “Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe.”[7]
.
When the Democratic party won majority status in the Senate in 1986, it was done with centrist and DLC affiliated candidates Barbara Mikulski (a participant in the DLC’s National Service Tour), Harry Reid (who recently said Democrats have to “swallow their pride” and move toward the middle), Conservative Democrat Richard Shelby, DLCer Bob Graham, DLCer Kent Conrad, and DLCer Tom Daschle. Bill Clinton ran his 1992 and 1996 campaigns as a New Democrat[10][11]
.
…New Democrats made significant gains in both the 2006 midterms and the 2008 elections.[12] In May of 2009, President Obama declared to the House New Democrat Coalition, “I am a New Democrat.”[13]

You must understand, Elvis, that these people have found success fundraising in the Beltway by demonizing us when the rightists were in power, and now are doing the same to movement conservatives’ popular base –unthinkable until just last year, really.
.
Ultimately, though, they don’t share a party with Republicans, they rule a party mostly composed at the grass roots by us: liberals, whom they fear and despise.
.
To a great degree (as I argue here: http://politicallagoon.blogspot.com/2008/09/joe-klein-is-not-your-friend.html), liberals have, mostly through habit, adopted the rightist frame of the “liberal media”, by which movement conservatism successfully attacked the ruling centrist Democratic Party (and executed the bloodless coup of a sitting President), but this is a grave mistake of perception on our part.
.
If you can see, Elvis, that:

“centrism” means seeing what John Kyl thinks, then seeing what Max Baucus thinks, then trying to meet in the middle.

, then you’re seeing the principles of centrism in legislative action!
.
If you can see that:

the centrist approach to Iraq was… the authorization of force resolution.

then you’re seeing “distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe” in action.
.
If you can see that:

…those crazy leftists who warned that invading Iraq was a terrible dangerous catastrophe in the making were completely irrelevant to the debate! Great work, Democrats and MSM!

, then can’t you also see that these “Democrats” from whom we can expect such great work are also literally members of or huge sympathizers with the DLC/New Democrats? …and that the MSM who run in terror away from the rightist attack label “liberal media” also share a peculiar philosophy that involves constantly splitting things down the middle to the detriment of empirical truth?
.
If you can see that:

Public opinion, and the opinion of informed policymakers, has nothing to do with “centrism.”

, then isn’t it time for you to stop using scare quotes around the term “centrist”, and really look clearly at the situation?
.
If it walks like a centrist, and quacks like a centrist, and tells you over and over again that it believes in centrism, don’t you think that it’s a bit crazy on our part not to call them what they really are, Elvis?
.
Centrism really is a painfully poor ideology of governance, and these really are centrists –not “centrists”.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, Elvis.
.
…END REPRINT…
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, Derek.

How is that the lesson of NJ? Corzine’s numbers were in the tank before Obama was ever sworn in. If anything, Obama’s FAILURE to “make the hard choices” and hold the banksters accountable was fatal to the re-election of the former Goldman CEO.

I’m a Democrat
.
If you’re going to pretend to be an American — much less an American Democrat — you might want to learn how we spell “behavior” in this country.
.
Also, you might not want to claim how Obama has “alienated our allies” in Europe when his popularity on the matter of foreign affairs is in the high 70s there.
.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/worldview/090908/transatlantic-trends-barack-obama-approval

koabd

So what are the core values of the “moderates” and “centrists”? From here it looks like acquiring power and privilege, and little else. What do you see them to be?

So the people have spoken?
.
You mean when the tea party folks put their Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiatives on the state ballots in Maine and Washington, and they were both roundly defeated?
.
Or when Palin, Pawlenty, Beck and company tried to make NY-23 a referendum on Obama and the result was the district went Democratic for the first time since the Civil War?
.
The people have spoken, Rusty. They don’t like you.

Square1:

I don’t think Obama could have done anything about the high property taxes in NJ. That election wasn’t about Obama but all about Corzine. Politics is local, remember?

Stuart, I tend to view moderation as an adjective, more than a noun. I know some people think of it as the latter but there is very little evidence supporting it. In many respects it is like conservatism, another empty ideology. Liberalism, on the other hand, is a real body of thought, one that has been evolving for hundreds of years. I can find a liberal ethics or even a liberal epistemology. The same is true about socialism. The only way moderation makes any sense to me, in the American context, is if you are talking about a moderate liberal, someone who balances between a conservative liberal or libertarian and a social liberal. America is a product of liberal thought. Many refer to the US constitution as the first liberal constitution or even empirical constitution. I don’t understand anyone who tries to treat liberalism as something different from American conservatism or centrisim, as if they are distinct and separate things. Those who equate liberalism with socialism or fascism I understand even less.
.
I hope that explains where I am coming from.

Guys: While the PO has assumed an outsized importance to the left and the right in this debate, I am not convinced it is a major factor in the minds of most people as they are trying to decide whether to support this plan overall — especially given the fact (CBO estimate=total enrollment of 6 million) that it would only be available to a very small percentage of the population. What is likely to figure far more heavily in places like Arkansas are questions of affordability–will you be able to afford the coverage that the govt would now require you to have?–and whether this plan really does much to bring health care costs under control.

KT: “You are on your own.”

Probably more useful than much of the ad nauseum punditry bound to be on display the next 48-72 hours.

What you don’t mention in your excellent Time article is the New York City race. The President’s love affair with Michael Bloomberg may have proved fatal to Democratic challenger Bill Thompson, to whom Obama gave the most tepid endorsement possible: “Well, he’s a Democrat.” Had Obama weighed in in what turned out to be a close race, the City — for better or for worse — might now have a Democratic mayor-elect.

The same goes for the Maine gay marriage vote, where Obama issued a lukewarm “everybody’s for equal rights” statement.

Obama’s timidity, as Arianna Huffington characterizes it, does not become him.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

I NJ there was two crooks running for office, niether one was liked, all it points to is that the GOP is willing to come out and vote Party over any other issue. Nothing changes there.

NY 23 though shows a rejection of the new more conservative GOP and reflects National Politics.

Jay:

So what are the core values of the “moderates” and “centrists”?

Well…listen to what they say about themselves:

The Third Way is a term that has been used to describe a political position which attempts to transcend right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a synthesis of some right-wing and left-wing economic policies.[1] Third Way approaches are commonly viewed from within the first- and second-way perspectives as representing a centrist compromise between capitalism and social democracy, or between market liberalism and social democracy. However, proponents of third way philosophies point out that this would merely be ‘half-way’ between right-wing and left-wing on the Enlightenment-era one-dimensional political spectrum in contrast to a third way which is a 20th century synthesis of these older polar viewpoints, transcending while including both of its predecessors as components in a Hegelian synthesis, rather than simply a compromise between the first two ways.[2] This claim is embodied in the alternative description of the Third Way as the Radical center.
.
In the United States, Third Way adherents reject fiscal conservatism, and advocate some replacement of welfare with workfare, and sometimes have a stronger preference for market solutions to traditional problems (as in pollution markets), while rejecting pure laissez-faire economics and other libertarian positions. The Third Way style of governing was firmly adopted and partly redefined during the Administration of President Bill Clinton.[32]

Centrists believe in “market-based solutions” and “public-private partnerships”, which, in practice, mean the state getting in bed with giant industries, which has meant electoral success in lethargic, consumer-voter US democratic culture.
.
They really are the Third Way.

KT-

No, the national popularity of the public option makes little difference to Lincoln. But the statewide popularity of it does. The real story here is whether the money she gets (and can expect to get, Daschle-style) is worth voting against her constituents’ interest.
.
WRT yesterday’s results, I can’t see any national significance in the governors’ races. There may be some (but I don’t think there is) in the Democrats winning the federal races. The idea that any of these races represent some kind of vote on Obama is hard to credit.

KT-
.
Or we can put it this way, having just looked at the enrollment document for 2010, with a ten percent increase in employee contribution, higher copays (MUCH higher for anything inpatient), and bigger deductibles, what matters to people is that they can get affordable health care.
.
It is very difficult to see how that will happen without the introduction of competition. And it is very hard to see how there can be competition in the absence of a robust public option.
.
Regulatory reform of insurance company practices would help, but that means not just legislation, but also enforcement. The recent record on the latter is quite poor wrt everything from meat packing to the stock market.
.
The latest Village line, cited by you, that it doesn’t matter because only 6 million people will be affected has a “Let them eat cake” sound to it. First, six million is a big number! Second, it assumes that there are no other effects from this. Third, if the effects were trivial, the insurance companies would not be spending money to prevent people who cannot afford or are not eligible for their policies from being covered.
.

stuart:
.
You simply describe 90% of the liberals on this site. With a few exceptions, each and everyone of you ascribe to what you have said about your so-called fairytale and evil “centrists”.
.
The only difference in your own case and what you have said in the past is your favorable opinion of the 2nd Admendment. And, that is purely in the form as not to be that big of an issue for most liberals to get all upset about. Meaning the other liberal issues are far and above and should be part of the agenda for change.
.
You can call yourself something, but your statements always seem to prove otherwise.
.
In the past, stuart has laid claim to being in favor of a neo-socialist/capitalist economic system. He is perfectly ok with government involvement with the private sector, either through complete takeover or partial takeover. Case in point, health care insurance.
.
Social values: Believes in an individuals right to do anything of benefit, but the motive behind this slide into libertarianism, is simply to allow for their social behaviors of gay marriage, public nudity, pot smoking and other liberal values are protected. It is not truly that Government should be kept out of the individuals lives or limit the size of Government. He is happy with big government programs and involvement so long as it does not infringe upon his individual liberal ideals and values.
.
He believes in a liberal court with activist judges who will enact legislation from the bench, if it solely serves the purpose of bolstering his liberal agenda. “the Constitution is a living document” which should be changed at a whim if it benefits his liberal ideals. He does not want a judicial system that will judge on the laws as they are written
.
You simply should look in the mirror and compare. Your core values are the same as any so-called “centrist” that you attempt to push yourself away from.

Jayack: It isn’t “let them eat cake” at all. The CBO analysis suggests that the majority of people eligible for the public option (4/5s) would choose a private one (also available on the exchanges) instead.
.
All I’m really saying here is that the debate over health care does not begin and end with the public option, as many commenters here seem to suggest (and seem to believe). There are in fact other issues that are likely to be far more important to the fate of this bill, and to the success of any reform effort that actually results.

Oh poor little liberal kevin. In two of the more bluer states, Maine and Washington, the liberals have killed the tax payer bill of rights to limit government spending.
.
The liberals are simply afraid that their welfare cost of living will be adjusted to inflation, rather than the simple Democrat give away.
.
Passing this type of legislation in any blue state would be very difficult, especially when the Democrats love to oil the machine with tax payer dollars in order to get voted back into office.

“This election could make Democrats more attuned to the political rhythms of their home states, and less willing to take risks. And that’s not necessarily good news for efforts to bring moderates aboard President Obama’s biggest initiatives, starting with health reform.”
.
Cap and trade, on life support now, is now pretty much a corpse.
.
I think KT’s analysis is basically saying “Ignore all the spin, and focus on the behavior of Dems.” Dems will tell you that Obama’s star really didn’t dim etc. etc., but watch what they do. Obama personally campaigned for Deeds and Corzine. And Deeds got beat by what, 17 points. Ouch. Saying that he was a crappy candidate only goes so far. Corzine lost in a deep blue state. People are going to get the message. On top of that, you have deep skepticism about Obama’s leadership in the polls on many issues.

The other issue is the GOP. Will the GOP be emboldened? I think so.

I think you’re a little off on this one allth, I believe NY23 was more a rejection of centrism than conservatism. And remember this will be done all over again in a year.
The fact that a conservative came out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago and made it close speaks volumes to me. B.O put a lot of time and effort into Corzine’s campaign(time and effort that could have been more wisely spent elsewhere, like, say,Afganistan) yet in a terminally blue and corrupt state like NJ, the republican cruised to victory. I dare say that could be interpreted as a rejection of Chicago thuggery. It’s early yet, but if I were a liberal I would be very concerned about the coming midterms. All of us wingnuts will be voting. Will the lefty’s? I suspect they will all be sitting on the couch whining because survivor and dancing with the stars is being preempted by election coverage.

Guys: While the PO has assumed an outsized importance to the left and the right in this debate, I am not convinced it is a major factor in the minds of most people as they are trying to decide whether to support this plan overall — especially given the fact (CBO estimate=total enrollment of 6 million) that it would only be available to a very small percentage of the population. What is likely to figure far more heavily in places like Arkansas are questions of affordability–will you be able to afford the coverage that the govt would now require you to have?–and whether this plan really does much to bring health care costs under control.
.
First of all aren’t the left and the right most people in this country or is that now independents? Second, most people have already decided they support the public option there are polls to prove it. The only ones not convinced are you, the media and our congress apparently. So I’m not sure what is going to take.

I guess we aren’t discussing Blanche Lincoln rendering herself unelectable because she insists on being woefully out of touch with her constituents any more.

I am confused by this statement:

The CBO analysis suggests that the majority of people eligible for the public option (4/5s) would choose a private one (also available on the exchanges) instead.

Is there a new public option bill that is proposed to be available for people that already have private insurance? It makes little sense to me that people currently without private insurance because they can’t afford it would select private insurance over that provided through a public option unless the prices for each were competitive.

Please explain.

Texting while driving is very dangerous. It causes people to veer invariably to the middle of the road, or the far left in most cases. Results most of the time in a horrible crash. A good lesson for the GOP.

Well, wait a minute, Karen– you’re the one who brought up the “nationwide popularity of the public option.” Then, when it was established that Arkansas loves it too, you fell back to, “well, the public option isn’t the alpha and omega of everything in reality.”
-
That is true, in policy terms, but since when did politicians act rationally? Why did Olympia Snowe demand that the stimulus bill be cut by an arbitrary amount of money? Simply because she likes to close her eyes and imagine herself a “centrist,” and likes to have people on TV call her a “moderate.”
-
If the media narrative is all about the public option being “too controversial,” regardless of the polls, you can bet your last dollar that Lincoln will vote solely and purely on the presence of a public option.

Alas, was supposed to go below. Stupid long thread and lack of reply option on later posts…

sy2d: CBO believes that the premiums being charged by the PO will be higher than those charged by the private insurance companies that are participating in the exchanges. Which means it will be attractive primarily to people who have high medical costs, and who don’t a private managed care firm flyspecking every claim.

“All I’m really saying here is that the debate over health care does not begin and end with the public option, as many commenters here seem to suggest (and seem to believe).”
.
Is there a better example of Beltway media thought than that sentence?
.
“You little people turning a policy plank into a fetish. Even if poll after poll shows that is what the majority wants. Silly little ones WE will decide what is important for you”
.
Again, any contempt any of us feels for the media is DWARFED by the contempt they have for their consumers.

Here some analysis to consider. It comes from a left wing cheeto eating blog though and go against MSM CW that we all love so take it with a grain of salt.
.
Creigh Deeds Failed To Run As A Progressive
.
NOT PROGRESSIVE ON CLIMATE: By the end of his campaign, Deeds was running ads attacking Obama’s clean energy agenda, saying Obama’s “cap and trade bill” would “hurt the people of Virginia.” Other ads carried the same message: “Creigh Deeds says no to any new energy taxes from Washington.” Instead of disputing his Republican opponent’s false attacks on climate legislation, Deeds amplified them. Deeds chose to run away from his past record on environment and climate issues. He had been a leader in “getting a land-preservation tax credit program into effect and supporting mass transit,” and “supporting a gas tax to fund transportation improvements.” Deeds “was one of 40 members of a commission on climate change convened by Virginia’s current governor.” His campaign platform included strong renewable energy and energy efficiency standards and environmental protection programs. Deeds embraced some coal industry positions. During the primary season, Deeds defended the despicable practice of mountaintop removal, telling a reporter in March, “The coal industry calls it surface mining.”
.
NOT PROGRESSIVE ON HEALTH CARE: During the final gubernatorial debate, Deeds stressed that health reform must “reduce costs so more people can afford insurance” and “increase coverage,” but argued that creating the option of a public health care plan “isn’t required.” “I don’t think the public option is necessary in any plan…I would certainly consider opting out if that were available to Virginia,” he said. After the debate, Deeds conceded that the plan might be “one way” to reduce costs, but “maybe one way might not be the best way.” “We have to leave all options on the table to find ways to reduce costs and increase coverage,” he concluded. The Deeds campaigned also issued a statement reiterating the candidate’s lukewarm support for the plan. “If the public option proves to be the best way” to reduce costs and expand
coverage, “he’d support having Virginia participate. He’ll examine all of the proposals on the table and choose the option than provides
Virginians with the most affordable and quality coverage.”
.
NOT PROGRESSIVE ON LABOR ISSUES: “When I’m governor, you won’t just have a friend in Richmond — you’ll have a partner,” Deeds told union supporters in October, 2008. However, despite support from SEIU and the Teamsters, Deeds then proceeded to campaign on an anti-labor platform. He opposed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — which would have created a fairer path toward unionization for workers — saying it would “put us at a competitive disadvantage” and reasserting the false right-wing claim that EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. Deeds also did not support the right of public safety employees in Virginia to bargain collectively, “because it would carry with it the right to strike.” However, Deeds had previously told the Fraternal Order of Police of Virginia that he was a “strong” supporter of their right to collectively bargain.
.
NOT PROGRESSIVE ON IMMIGRATION REFORM: More than one in ten Virginians are immigrants. The Immigration Policy Center also points out that Latinos comprised 2.0% (or 74,000) of Virginia voters in the 2008 elections — enough to make a difference in a tight race. Creigh Deeds might regret repeatedly voting in favor of legislation that would hurt a large and growing part of his constituency. Deeds voted alongside his contender, Republican Robert F. McDonnell, to designate English as the state’s official language. He also supported denying undocumented immigrants state or local benefits. Deeds recently voted in favor of a bill that would’ve restricted in-state college tuition benefits to undocumented immigrants. And although undocumented immigrants can’t vote, about one-third of all “unauthorized families” in the country are “mixed-status families,” or families that include legal resident and US citizen family members. Neither Deeds nor McDonnell talked much about immigration on the campaign trail, however, Deeds’ organizers told the Washington Post that he would treat immigration as a federal issue and McDonnell would not.
.
http://thinkprogress.org/

KT, I just want to be super clear that I view the PO as a goal line stand, not as the best solution. As your post on the cost of healthcare the other day made abundantly clear, we haven’t really had a debate about the best possible solutions. As for the CBO report, my understanding was that the PO component was with negotiated rates not medicare + 5, but I could be wrong about that.

The polls that have been conducted and the wording of the questions has been more of a popularity contest, rather than a poll on Obama’s policies.
.
Hopefully going forward they will take out the popularity questions, and instead ask the tougher questions such as “Is Obama’s health care proposal what you believe should be the direction he should take this country”?
.
But, even the drop and change in his favorability ratings in the polls are almost identical to the change in the vote for both Virginia and New Jersey. The fall in favorabilities mirrors the loss of support the Dems once had in both of these States.
.
You are absolute correct that the Dems in Congress will from this point forward provide Obama lip-service, but when the actual votes in Congress are counted I believe you shall see a change. No longer will the blue dogs be intimadated by the Obama “Messiah” factor, now they can vote how their districts are represented.
.
Look for more legislation that tackles the economy, taxes and jobs. Obama’s social agenda is kaput.

phoenix: please see my earlier comments. i think the PO is not going to be what drives the debate. it is a very small slice of the health reform picture. far more important are questions of affordability and cost, neither of which are going to be all that much affected by the version of the PO that is currently in the House bill, which is the strongest one on the table.

Excellent commetary in Phila Inquirer showing why the earlier comment of slowp at #21 was dead on. Christie Whitman made NJ voters happy because she did the usual Repub cut tax and borrow and McGreevey followed, leaving Corzine to clean up. Chris Christie will likely go back to the Repub pattern and things will get worse.

All Christie is offering is platitudes, and that’s not enough to warrant putting him in Corzine’s place.

…his whole campaign has been designed to pull attention from him by focusing on Corzine. He’s hoping voters won’t remember that much of the economic mess Corzine inherited can be traced to another Christie – former Republican Gov. Christie Todd Whitman.

She was swept into office after campaigning, much like her namesake, to cut taxes and spending. She cut taxes all right, but tripled the state’s debt. That pattern continued through the administration of Democratic Gov. Jim McGreevey, who even wanted to borrow money for operating expenses.

Who brought some sanity to the situation? Corzine.

He is the first New Jersey governor in 60 years to actually reduce the size of government. The state has 8,200 fewer employees. He has cut state spending two years in a row, with a budget for fiscal 2010 that is $1.8 billion smaller than his first budget in 2006, yet he has increased school funding.

Speaking of schools, it took Corzine to finally get rid of the long-criticized dual system of funding education that gave a disproportionate share of state dollars to the “Abbott” schools at the expense of other schools that had almost as many poor students. It was an outstanding achievement.

There’s more. The unions’ bedmate has increased the retirement age for state workers to 62 from 55, has state employees for the first time contributing to their health care, and negotiated a 7.5 percent wage cut for public employees. Meanwhile, he’s added 90,000 more children to the state’s health insurance program.

Corzine’s background in finance has been an asset in the recession. You can’t discount his leadership in New Jersey’s having a home-foreclosure rate 50 percent lower than the national average.

And Corzine is correctly pointing out that Christie’s mantra to cut spending is only a partial answer. The state’s massive debt must be addressed. It has grown from about $5 billion when Whitman became governor in 1994 to more than $30 billion now, requiring $3 billion in annual debt service.

So, if Corzine is all that, why is he in a dead heat with Christie, with Daggett nipping at their heels?

First, property taxes are too high. Then, there are the fear and anger that come part and parcel with a recession, much of that anger rightly aimed at public officials at all levels, whom the public had trusted to keep tabs on Wall Street (where Corzine headed Goldman Sachs).

People want to throw all the bums out, and Corzine just happens to be the only governor up for reelection this year. Members of Congress, you’re next.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/68147312.html

pierogie: yes, the one with negotiated rates is the strongest version of the public option on the table. it is not going to affect either costs or affordability all that much. and those two issues are far more important in driving this debate, as well as in assuring the ultimate success of health care reform.

The most important and basic point of this election. And, also why the Dems going into 2010 will be most fearful. Why also you will not see any major changes, in particular towards Health Care Reform or Cap and Trade.
.

“People want to throw all the bums out, and Corzine just happens to be the only governor up for reelection this year. Members of Congress, you’re next.”

.
I sense any incumbent, Republican or Democrat will have the biggest chance of losing in 2010 than ever before.
.
How many incumbent Democrats will be voted on, again?

Elvis: I am making both of those arguments, which do not contradict. People (in Ark and nationally) telling pollsters that they like the public option is not the same as saying they will demand it, or that they will support a plan that includes it if it otherwise does not address their concerns about affordability and health care costs.
.
In my view, tail is wagging dog in too many of these discussions about the public option. I realize people here disagree, but that is nonetheless my view.

Also, Elvis, this is not to say that I do not believe, in pure policy terms, that the public option is a bad idea. I think it is a good idea. But it is not the central idea of health care reform.
.
I went back and re-read Obama’s speech announcing his health care plan back in 2007. Though the public option was part of that plan (as I learned in a subsequent briefing on it), it did not get so much as a single mention in that speech.
.
You can read it here:
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/us/politics/28text-obama.html?_r=1

Yargh. that reply to elvis was meant for a different string. let me go try to find it.

reposting, hopefully in the right spot this time:

Also, Elvis, this is not to say that I do not believe, in pure policy terms, that the public option is a bad idea. I think it is a good idea. But it is not the central idea of health care reform.
.
I went back and re-read Obama’s speech announcing his health care plan back in 2007. Though the public option was part of that plan (as I learned in a subsequent briefing on it), it did not get so much as a single mention in that speech.
.
You can read it here:
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/us/politics/28text-obama.html?_r=1

Disengaging here, because I have a series of appointments I have to make. Will check back in later.

Have fun. We’ll try to take disengagement to an art form level.

pierogi
.
My panel at netroots nation (http://www.netrootsnation.org/node/1336) included Eric Massa (NY-29) making your point about negotiated rates.His comments are about 20 minutes in.
.
KT-
.
Yes, a sucky public option won’t do much good. And, yes, stopping recission and other repulsive practices through legislation and regulation is very important. BUT a reform package that includes an individual mandate that most currently uninsured people have to buy crappy insurance they cannot afford will be both a policy disaster and a political disaster for the democrats. And, ironically, the democrats at greatest risk from another set of subsidies to yet another set of corporate entities that people are forced to turn to (like cable, telecom, banks, cellular) are the Blue Dogs.

Would like to see the numbers underlying this:

Tonight’s big lesson

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary “bipartisanship”, you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected — health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform — you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we’re not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We’ll turn out if we feel it’s worth our time and effort to vote, and we’ll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren’t going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they’re voting for, and it ain’t you.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/4/800316/-Tonights-big-lesson

2 States. Not really a big deal. Corzine’s association with Goldman hurt him and you can’t blame NJ property owners for feeling like they’re getting the shaft.

Don’t know much about Virginia. But it’s funny today I wake up and see all sorts of press about what a bad night it is for the Democrats. Whatever. 2 Statehouses. Hardly the end. Or even really a setback. Ironically it was the Wall Street Journal editors who I thought had the most rational take: when the party in power is facing 10% unemployment and got dealt a pretty rough hand right from the start there will be hiccups.

You mean voters vote based on individual candidates and actual issues instead of endorsements? Stop the presses!

Wait… what?

Sorry – I’m being told the presses have already pretty much stopped all by themselves.

So values have to be extreme to be valid? What nonsense is this?

Rustydog:
.
(sigh)
.
No, no, no.
.
If you will read the Great Orang Satan’s (Kos of DailyKos) piece he did for CATO (link to CATO piece by Markos), you’ll see this:

The modern libertarian (and conservative) view has been that government is an evil, perhaps necessary, but still a grave threat to personal liberties requiring the utmost vigilance against its instincts for perpetual expansion. The larger government grows, the more it infringes on our personal space, inevitably placing limits on our freedoms. And given government’s police powers, that threat is grave indeed. There’s a reason libertarians view the Second Amendment as an absolute right—its abolition would limit one of the most effective ages-old tools against governmental tyranny.
.
Hence, there was (and is) a natural tension between liberals who see government as a benign force for good, and those who can point to plenty of history showing otherwise. And as long as government remained the greatest threat to our personal liberties, this tension was fated to remain. Republicans, out-of-power for much of the 20th century, and livid at the Democrats’ expansion of government, spoke of shrinking government and limiting its power. Libertarians, while not exactly perfect allies of the GOP, were likely to get more of what they sought by making common cause with conservatives than liberals.
.
But that began to change as the power of corporations grew. As the pseudonymous user “hekebolos” wrote in a Daily Kos diary:

Up until even very recently, it was still definitely possible to construe government as [the] largest threat to individual liberty. It wasn’t very long ago that “what was good for GM was good for the USA.” Government regulation of corporations was seen as interfering with the prosperity of the average American. You see, the libertarian/conservative idea behind the primacy of the free market was that there would always be an intersection between what was good for business and what was good for the consumer. But that correlation was far greater in years past than it is today.
.
The fundamental reason that “libertarian” has become “libertarian democrat” is that corporations are becoming more powerful than governments. This fundamental fact has created a union between those with libertarian tendencies and those who believed all along that government can be a force for good.

As hekebolos further noted, defense contractors now have greater say in what weapons systems get built (via their lobbyists, blackmailing elected officials by claiming that jobs will be lost in their states and districts if weapons system X gets axed). The energy industry dominates the executive branch and has reaped record windfall profits. Our public debt is now held increasingly by private hedge funds. Corporations foul our air and water. They plunder our treasury.

This list, I’m sure, could be added to. Oil and oil services companies can even dictate when and how the most powerful nation on earth decides to go to war. A cabal of major corporate industry is, in fact, more powerful than the government of the most powerful nation on earth–and government is the only thing that can stop them from recklessly exploiting the people and destroying their freedom.

That, in essence, is why I am a Democrat, and why my original blog post on libertarian Democrats struck a chord with so many. We cherish freedom, and will embrace any who would protect it. But that necessarily includes, in this day and age, the government.

Centrists want to use a partnership between giant corporate power and the state to manage change –so that they are the ones who always do the managing.
.
(That’s why the same giant banks still run the economy, because centrists really believe in the power of that partnership, and don’t want to change partners and perhaps upset that relationship.)
.
We liberals don’t see giant corporate and financial interests as partners, we see them as threats to be contained by setting the state against them.
.
See how that works? The state checks corporate power, the private sector checks state dominance, and individuals and entrepreneurs aren’t so under the thumb of either, because we can ally with either in different ways at different times of necessity.
.
We are not Third Way, New Democrat centrists, Rustydog.
.
We’re neo-liberals.

Perhaps you’re right destor, but I can’t help but wonder what y’all would be saying today if the results had gone the other way….

Thanks so much for responding to commentary, KT, this has been quite an interesting exchange.
.
I’m still unclear as to your response to the PCCC survey of Blanche Lincoln’s Arkansas that shows widespread support for the public option, and so disproves her (and your, and Chris Matthews’, and the Village’s) claims that she needs vote with the filibuster on pragmatic, electoral grounds, though.
.
If polling data shows Arkansans want the PO (regardless of its necessity or being good policy), and Conventional Wisdom is that Blanche needs to vote her constituents’ wishes on HCR, then she should be for the PO, not against it.
.
How does that make sense?

The same voters in Maine who rejected gay marriage also rejected the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
.
Are they conservative or liberal, Rusty?

Say what? Rejection of Centrism/ It was a low turn out, I’d say it was a rejection of both candidates. These politicians fail to inspire.

Yup.

“I am making both of those arguments, which do not contradict. People (in Ark and nationally) telling pollsters that they like the public option is not the same as saying they will demand it, or that they will support a plan that includes it if it otherwise does not address their concerns about affordability and health care costs.”
.
KT-Maybe when you get back you explain this. How are people supposed to demand the public option? Are we/they supposed to march in the streets, clog the switch board. Because all those things are happening in addition to the polls in one form or another.

So I really don’t understand.

Dems lost two governorships — one in that bastion of radical leftism, Virginia.

Bloomberg managed to hang onto his mayorship.

NY 23rd elected a Dem for the first time since 1812.

This means, obviously, that the Democrats are in serious trouble.

I know that two data points make in trend, but … ?

The CBO analysis suggests that the majority of people eligible for the public option (4/5s) would choose a private one (also available on the exchanges) instead.

But so what? That means 20% of those eligible would opt for the PO.

I’ve got employer-provided insurance, just as long as (a) the Republican health care “plan” does not pass, (b) I keep my job, and (c ) my employer does not cut benefits. So I’m in the 4/5 bracket for now, but I would sure like a PO to fall back on.

Lessons for both Repubs and Dems from yesterday’s election results…

For the Dems: Unpopular candidates (Corzine) and poorly-run campaigns (Deeds) have a hard enough time winning in traditionally Democratic-leaning states, much less swing states like New Jersey and Virginia. There also needs to be an active ground game and adequate campaign funding; the Democrats can’t let up or expect to ride Obama’s coattails.

For the Repubs: To win in swing states, GOP candidates will at least have to campaign as populist moderates, as Christie and McDonnell did. Furthermore, a majority of voters will reject a far-right candidate over a moderate one; Doug Hoffman’s loss in a traditionally Republican district shows that far-right conservative ‘principles’ and support from celebrity right-wingers alone aren’t enough to put a candidate into office.

Having said all that…Check out Nate Silver’s take over at CNN.com…

Regardless of what he might say, B.O wants the public option and will settle for nothing less. When private insurance becomes so expensive that no one can afford it, suddenly everyone will be falling back on the public option. Private or public, it’s still healthcare, and someone will have to pay for it. I hate to repeat the old worn out line, but if you think it’s expensive now, just wait ’till it’s free.

Since when did NJ become a swing state?

Since when did NJ become a swing state?

Must be your short-term memory, 2/3ds; New Jersey governorships have [swung back and forth from Dem to Repub for some time]. Can you at least remember as far back as Christine Todd Whitman?

Can you repeat that again?

” When private insurance becomes so expensive that no one can afford it, suddenly everyone will fall back on the PO” It isn’t even if private insurance becomes so expensive.

If not the PO what else would you have us do? Go with out? You make the best case for the PO, or better yet Universal Care.

But how do we pay for it?

2thirdsrocks: Speaking only for myself, the only real surprise was the 23rd. I thought the republican would win in Virginia (that follows a trend stretching back over 30 years). New Jersey was disappointing but not in the least bit surprising. Corazine has looked like a loser for a couple of years. If the democrats had won in Virginia I would have been shocked. I don’t see a trend.

So by that logic just about every state is a swing state?

Nope. We’re just talking about New Jersey (and, specifically the governor’s office), remember?

But you have to admit sacred, that it was pretty much a landslide in VA and considering the blueness of NJ, a right fair trouncing there too. I think the biggest factor was that the democrats failed to energize their base. Very unlike the prez race. Do you have any confidence that things will be any different in 2010? What type of strategy do you suggest they adopt?

How do we pay the massive costs of our military?
.
if you are a Repub, you borrow the money from the Chinese.
.
If you are a Dem, you raise taxes and find other ways to reduce the costs.
.
If you are a Conservative, you engage in fantasies about free markets, tax breaks, bombs, and bootstraps as an answer to everything.
.
And, yes, those are gross overgeneralizations. I’m sure that there are some specific examples that can be presented as a counter.

Yes I remember. Just never heard it put that way. Swingstate in my mind refers to presidential elections, but what does an old hick like me know?

Nah, you’re right; calling New Jersey a swing state is a stretch; it would prolly be more accurate to call the NJ governor’s job a swing seat…

With taxes, just like every modern, industrialized, democratic country.

I know, I know, but it will cost jobs, you say, well who is paying for it now. You? Yes either through the products you purchase, passed on by your employer, and from your wallet, your share charged by your employer, and taxes through medicaid, medicare, chips, Hospital districts, etc.

There is no escaping it we are paying, we are going to pay. It is time to get it under control, so there will not be times when we have to worry about not having insurance.

Freemarkets,taxbreaks, and bootstraps are fantasies that have had great success more times than not. Bombs when necessary. I’d say more bombs in Iraq and Afganistan would have resulted in way less American casualties. But then they wouldn’t love us the way they do now, would they? Let’s not not forget that each month in Afganistan lately has been more deadly than the last.

Since when has the government ever gotten anything under control? Name one government program that has ever operated in the black. Everything they have ever touched has gone deeply in the hole. Yet you expect this healthcare thing will be the be all end all. I just don’t have that kind of blind trust.

Guys, you can tell the WH is royally ticked about this loss:
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29113.html
.
Telling Weiner to “man up”? First of all, “man up” is so yesterday. Why not be edgier and say “sack up” or even “nut up”? Second of all, who are these guys, just graduated frat boys at their first paying gig?
.
Amateur hour. Remember when Obama said, “I won.” Well, we’re a long way from that. The WH should have said that in America the people are king and that, while disappointed, they are hopeful that the newly elected governors will help provide solutions for the problems they were elected to solve and that President Obama congratulates the winners. What’s so hard about that?

I’ll go along with that. It will probably turn blue again in 4 yrs.

Oh! I can hear the outrage now, your government is making a profit building your roads, defending the country, providing your water, providing your education. Governments are not meant to tax me at a profit. They do not run in the black, break even they can, if we let them.

Of all the races last night, this one seemed to me to be the least interesting. In my mind Bloomburg is just another RINO. The whitehouse would have been better off to have just went with”no comment”. Isn’t this the guy who wants to tax snacks and soda’s, and put warning labels on vending machines, or do I have him mixed up with someone else. Again, hard to pay attention to….

Let’s see now, government operating at a profit would translate to(in a perfect world) lower taxes. There’s an old saying that goes way back to our founding father’s actually, something about the government serving the people. Now there’s a fantasy for ya! Our government could operate with a profit, but then a 165,000 a year senator would have a hard time owning a 5 million mansion, while leasing a 30 million dollar jetplane.

Thanks for responding, KT. This thread may be long dead (like the healthcare debate that could have been), but I was under the impression that PO rates at medicare + 5 did the most to keep costs down, but that that didn’t make it into the final house bill. Again, I could be dreaming hear.

2thirds: The size of the margin in Viriginia isn’t something I was expecting. It was a trouncing. I expected defat, but not to that extent. You’re right about the dem base not being energized. My party has a long history og taking midterms and off-year elections lightly. As for 2010 and strategy…we have the numbers but it’s like trying to herd cats. Everybody seems to go their own way without a great deal of focus. I think my party will lose seats in both houses, but not enough to shift control. If the economy does substantially pick up before 2012, I look for us to regain some seats then. Alot is going to depend on who the republicans run against Barack I think if the republicans go very conservative, there’s a good chance Barack will have coat tails again. Gotta go to work.

Oooh…SNAP!
.
Maybe the guys in the TIME pressroom can start ‘em so they can stop ‘em…

Our government could operate with a profit.
.
Except that our government is not a for-profit enterprise, thank God…
.
…even then, it occasionally does earn a profit:

JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) today will begin repaying funds they received from the government’s bank rescue program, according to news reports.
.
Together, the three banks received $45 billion in capital under the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Last week, officials cleared them and seven other banks to redeem some $68 billion in preferred shares the government purchased under the program.

I do not think that the issue is Obama’s popularity rubbing off or not on local elections, the issue has more to do with leadership.

Obama needs to take a “Rove” and “Cheney” like approach to Democrats who insist on “going rogue”.
This Health Care fiasco and the Democrats fighting among themselves has weakened the Presidents position and that of the Democratic party in the public eye.
Blue dogs, yellow dogs and all the other dogs in the Democratic party need to be brought in line. They need to learn to bark together as one otherwise the party will continue to look weak and ineffective.

As for Obama, I hope he can read the handwriting on the wall about all this playing Mr. Nice guy and holding his breath for non-partisan politics. It will not happen. Obama is better served by herding his own party and adopting a hard line with those who refuse to conform.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/criminals-use-technology-to-trackrape-and-kill-innocent-people/

“…please see my earlier comments. i think the PO is not going to be what drives the debate…”
.
Yes, you keep saying that. The trouble is: 1) it’s been driving the debate and 2) it’s been driving the debate because all of the forces of corporatist “conservatism” are doing everything they possibly can to kill it, while progressives insist it’s necessary. Obviously, no need to account for the crazy DFHs but you need to reconcile how goddamned important it seems to be to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries with your thesis that it will have little effect on the overall health care system.

Oh, and to save time, please don’t just recite the CBO scoring. They’re not the effing Oracle at Delphi and could likely be missing something that scares the living crap out of the corporatists who keep insisting it doesn’t matter much while throwing money, favor and threats, hand-over-fist, to try to stop it or water it down to nothing.

I think you are missing the point Karen,. It not the content of the public option that matters;it’s become the litmus test of getting Democrats to stand up and act like Democrats.
.
The public option itself is pretty lame — even it its most robust form, it couldn’t make any dent in controlling actual costs of care. But after seeing the Democrats just roll over and give up on true reform, many in the electorate think they should at least be able to vote for the neutered version that is now on the table.

Think CBO is smarter than you or I on this, given the amount of time they have spent studying and modeling this. Can you actually cite any flaw in their methodology, or are you just guessing there must be one somewhere because you don’t like the answer they came up with?

Also, if anyone has a more authoritative, more unbiased, more nonpartisan source on all this stuff than CBO, I’m perfectly willing to listen to whoever that might be. Until then, I will continue to cite CBO and have no apologies for doing so.

Nice KT from dismissive to defensive in one day.

“Put most simply, the CBO’s track record in predicting

the effects of health legislation is abysmal. Over the last two decades, the CBO has routinely overestimated the costs of expanded government health care benefits and underestimated the savings from program changes designed to reduce expenditures. Most recently, it overestimated the five-year cost of Medicare Part D — the prescription drug benefit -— by more than 35%. Even more dramatically, the CBO’s estimates of the Medicare savings from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 underestimated the impact, on average, by a full 100%. That’s right: In the BBA’s first three years, Medicare spending fell fully twice as fast as the CBO had projected”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/37284-1.html

Honestly the absolute heels in the ground mindset of the opinion makers is a bigger obstacle then any push back from the healthcare industry.

Karen, they’re accountants. Looking at the history, from the S&L’s, to the dot-coms, to Enron, to AIG, to Maddoff, to uncle Bob’s estate, it’s not like they never miss anything. I hear it’s a pretty complex set of proposals and they’re kind of busy trying to figure out all of the possible future ramifications.
.
Anyway, you haven’t addressed my point in the slightest if you can’t give any explanation of why industry is so rabidly (and expensively) set against it, if it really will have no important effect on their business. If I were a good and smart journalist covering thr topic, I’d wonder what industry believes about the public option that the CBO hasn’t figured out yet.

In conversations that I have had with top insurance company executives going all the way back to last spring, they have often told me privately that they would have no big objection to a public plan that worked on negotiated rates. That is one of the reasons I wrote this post back in March:.
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/26/max-baucus-and-the-public-plan/

I’m not saying CBO is perfect, and for that matter, they don’t claim to be. But it is the best we have, and more importantly, the official arbiter of questions like this. And in this case, I think their analysis is perfectly logical.
.
Have you got a better source? If so, I would love to see it, this being the reality-based community and all.

I’m heading to Texas to spend a few days celebrating my mom’s 80th, so I will miss the House vote, but my colleagues here at TIME will keep you up to date.

allthingsinana:

Nice delusion but not reality. NJ is a Blue Blue state. A Republican getting elected needs the help of independents and/or democrats who become ill over the lack an redeeming quality of thier candidate.

Even with Corzine outspending him 4:1, the push from labor and other low life liberal groups and a third party candidate, Christie managed nearly 50% of the votes.

The 23rd you seem so proud of showed an exercise disorganization by the Republicans more than any great trend of national politics.

“Can you actually cite any flaw in their methodology”
.
“I’m not saying CBO is perfect”
.
So they are flawless but not perfect?

Anyway, enjoy the 80th party it’s a good sign to have longevity in your genes!

And no busman holidays-have a fun disconnected weekend.

So they are spending vast amounts of money and political capital to kill the PO to show their lack of objection?
.
Thank you for responding to my honest curiosity about this very curious conundrum, KT, and have a wonderful time with your Mom.